MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
I wish Fed would have waited about 1 more year. Would love to have seen what Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Nalbandian could have done in 04.
I think prime Fed is overrated on this forum
- Thread starter kragster
- Start date
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
Hewitt reached the 2004 US Open final without dropping a single set. I thought Federer was doomed.
People always talk about how Roddick's career got messed up by Federer, but they forget to mention Lleyton Hewitt. Lleyton really tried his hardest to stop Federer in 2004-2005. He put up an even more spirited performance than Agassi against Federer at the USO 2005 SF.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Hewitt would have finished the year number 2 if he hadn't had started the year at number 17 and kept running into Federer early on in big tournaments, and thus losing out on extra ranking points. Hewitt needed to beat Federer in the 2004 Masters Cup final to overtake Roddick and get the year-end number 2 ranking, but wasn't able to do it.
Sid_Vicious
G.O.A.T.
It sucked for him because Lleyton gave Roddick the beating of a lifetime in 2004 master cup SFs.
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Federer was favourite, but I fancied Hewitt's chances of winning, considering that Hewitt was a former US Open champion and I thought that the rowdy atmosphere suited Hewitt's personality more. Federer played arguably his greatest match that day, near flawless. I knew after that match that Federer wasn't just having a great 2004, but that he was going to dominate for years. Thank goodness for Nadal
I know. I don't understand why, to be honest, and how they assume that Roddick was prevented from winning a load of majors by Federer, but they don't seem to play up the fact that Hewitt was always losing to eventual major winners in 2004-2005.
Hewitt won the last 20 points of the match. Roddick fired Brad Gilbert as his coach before 2004 ended, probably the biggest mistake he made.
Set Sampras
Banned
Hewitt's career went downhill when he kicked Cahill to the curb. He was never the same after that. I dunno how much Fed truly had to do with it. He had some to do with it.. But getting rid of Cahill had more to do with it. I still believe Hewitt in 01-02 under Cahill was more focused, deadlier then he was without Cahill.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
The problem is that the real prime Agassi lasted a year (1995) and he still finished at no 2 and only won 1 slam in that season. Federer maintained his highest level for 4-5 years and still can bring the heat from time to time. Apart from that he had some runs like 1992 Wimbledon or 1994 US open (which probably gave him confidence for 1995 in the first place), some say his prime was 1999-2003. It's really had to tell with him. I've seen him play great tennis even in 2004 at 34 in Cincinnati, Australia or the US Open to name a few.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Agassis best years of tennis were 1990, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, and 2001. He did not have a long defined prime period, just a scattered one. If one had to pick one it would be any of 1990-1992, 1994-1995, 1999-2001 though. His absolute peak year of tennis was 1995 IMO, 1999 was in terms of results but 1995 his actual tennis was a bit higher.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
2004-2005 was Hewitts most consistently strong tennis ever, but I felt his best tennis in 2001-2002 was better than 2004-2005 and mentally he was more the killer those years. I dont think he would have ever been better than prime Federer though.
I'm just saying given Fed the oppotunity to play on 2 surfaces, he could have won the CS. Hell, given Sampras 2 surfaces to conquer, he could have won a CS. Throw in Nadal, if his entire career had only to deal with 2 surfaces, he can win a CS too.
It's just the 3rd surface coming to play makes a difference. Huge difference.
Stop getting your panties in a bunch.
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
I hate to say it, but you are correct.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
The 2 surfaces Laver won the CS on were grass and clay. It has already been proven that Federer would have won ZERO CS with 3 slams on grass and 1 on clay like Laver played in. The same is true of Sampras. The same is true of Nadal who is not dominant enough on grass to win 3 of 3 in a year. So your argument as usual goes down the toilet. Laver did what others werent good enough to do, even had they played under the same format as him. Next.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
I agree. Agassi of 95 would be too much for prime Federer, prime Nadal, or prime Djokovic on hard courts. Only a serve and volley machine with the best serve ever, great volleys, and also a very good baseline game like Sampras could beat Agassi on hard courts in that form, and even then only occasionally. Losing to Sampras in that 95 U.S Open final killed Agassi. I am sure he felt that should have been his year to end with multiple slams and year end #1, and based on his overall play that year it probably should have, but Sampras came up clutch in that U.S Open final and it set him back for years to come.
Set Sampras
Banned
Yea it seems like only a mismatch of styles could stop a Prime, younger Andre. Pete had the baseline and the serve and net game. ( and even then Pete never beat him at the Australian despite playing very well) I always though Agassi would match up much better with Roger then he ever did Pete. He matches up well vs. Nadal, and probably matches up the best with djokovic.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Yeah Djokovic would give Agassi a clean ball to hit without excessive spin or a lefty matchup like Nadal, he doesnt serve nearly as well as Sampras or even Federer, he even today doesnt have the forehand of prime Federer or prime Sampras, and Agassi didnt mind playing great defensive baseliners who couldnt outhit him. He would probably treat Djokovic like a zouped up better combination of Kafelnikov and Chang. Out of shape Agassi during his down years would find Djokovic a nightmare, but I definitely believe fit and hungry Agassi could handle him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Darren Cahill was Hewitt's coach from December 1998 to December 2001. Cahill became Agassi's coach in February 2002 after Agassi parted ways with Brad Gilbert. Under Cahill, Hewitt won the US Open, his first Masters Cup and became world number 1. Hewitt's coach after Cahill was Jason Stoltenberg, from December 2001 to June 2003. Under Stoltenberg, Hewitt won Wimbledon, both his Indian Wells titles, another Masters Cup, and spent all but 2 weeks as world number 1.
Hewitt's best level of tennis was in 2004-2005, when he was bigger in build, had extra power with his fast pace, and was only losing to the eventual champions in majors every time. Hewitt was coached by Roger Rasheed during this time.
Set Sampras
Banned
Yea.. The whole myth of Fed playing some cyborg prime Andre is extremely false. Really the evidence in the results. From 2003-on, After the Australian Open, what did Andre win? By the time Fed hit his stride, Agassi was already a good 2 years on the clear decline. Its like trying to argue Sampras in his prime in 2001 with zero titles and a 35-16 record.
I think Andre would eat Nole's serve alive and controll the baseline ralleys. He doesn't move as well as Nole, but Andre never had to be Chang or Borg or Nadal in the movement department to win. Nadal is a mentally tough cookie so that would be a tremendous rivalry IMO. Though I don't think Nadal is nearly as good on hardcourts of course. Grass would interesting. Nadal is better but Andre was no shmuck. Indoors Andre triumphs. Clay Nadal triumphs.
I think Andre would eat Nole's serve alive and controll the baseline ralleys. He doesn't move as well as Nole, but Andre never had to be Chang or Borg or Nadal in the movement department to win. Nadal is a mentally tough cookie so that would be a tremendous rivalry IMO. Though I don't think Nadal is nearly as good on hardcourts of course. Grass would interesting. Nadal is better but Andre was no shmuck. Indoors Andre triumphs. Clay Nadal triumphs.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
lol what myth? No one claims Agassi played his best tennis 2003 on, but he still wasn't a bad player.
I think Djokovic would not have problems with Agassi's serve either. Agree though that Agassi will be more aggressive.
Agassi stands a good chance against Nadal because he had a great BH. Not on clay though or today's grass for that matter.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
The funny part of that boy's desperation is that Federer--his false god--cut his own status down with his statement about the "maturity" of his rivals. His fanboys in this thread have failed to create a credible motive for his statement (certainly, something he was not forced into revealing), other than the only one which exists: as Federer's career winds down, even he could no longer buy his cheerleader's GOAT lies, thus he pointed out how easy he once had it during his early majors-winning days.
How that must hurt his TW cheerleaders.
Then tell me what other username besides TMF that I've post in here? You have been suspended(for hating Maria/Ivanovic) before but I know you're still in denial. It's been proven by many members in here that your friend Davey25 has dozen of usernames b/c he was banned. Since you are a good friend of him, I wouldn't be surprise if you have a few active usernames yourself.
Since the ****s are getting all caught up with the CS, we should differentiate the two type of CS between the 60s and the late 70s up to the present.
Type A CS: A 4 slam events in a year that are play on grass 3 times and 1 time on clay.
Type B CS: A 4 slam events in a year that are play 2 on hc, 1 on grass, and 1 on clay.
In the history of the men sport, NO PLAYER has ever won a CS in a type B CS, or on 3 different surfaces.
No player has won a type A CS starting 1978 since the USO was converted to hc(deco turf), which was year that started with all 4 slams being play on 3 different surfaces.
Type A CS: A 4 slam events in a year that are play on grass 3 times and 1 time on clay.
Type B CS: A 4 slam events in a year that are play 2 on hc, 1 on grass, and 1 on clay.
In the history of the men sport, NO PLAYER has ever won a CS in a type B CS, or on 3 different surfaces.
No player has won a type A CS starting 1978 since the USO was converted to hc(deco turf), which was year that started with all 4 slams being play on 3 different surfaces.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Your desperation to belittle all others achievements to try and force feed Federer as the indisputed GOAT is more and more pathetic by the day. Type A and Type B Grand Slam, what a joke. Why dont we make Type A and Type B Wimbledon titles too:
Type A- Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and Becker's 7 Wimbledon finals on real grass.
Type B- Federer's 6 Wimbledons and Nadal's 5 Wimbledon finals on todays phony rye grass which the organizers of Wimbledon have admited to. So Federer and Nadal even playing on joke grass which benefits the baseliners still cant match what Sampras and Becker did on real grass.
It makes atleast as much sense as your reasoning.
Type A- Sampras's 7 Wimbledons and Becker's 7 Wimbledon finals on real grass.
Type B- Federer's 6 Wimbledons and Nadal's 5 Wimbledon finals on todays phony rye grass which the organizers of Wimbledon have admited to. So Federer and Nadal even playing on joke grass which benefits the baseliners still cant match what Sampras and Becker did on real grass.
It makes atleast as much sense as your reasoning.
alltho i realize this debate will never end
federer in his prime produced the best tennis that has been witnessed till this day. which is why he cannot be overrated
when you say he played the best tennis ever its not overrating him its the truth.
thats like going to a basketball forum and starting a thread "i think prime jordan is overrated on this forum"
federer in his prime produced the best tennis that has been witnessed till this day. which is why he cannot be overrated
when you say he played the best tennis ever its not overrating him its the truth.
thats like going to a basketball forum and starting a thread "i think prime jordan is overrated on this forum"
billnepill
Hall of Fame
ironically , neither Sampras nor Becker would have won on today's grass as much as they did during their time.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
You dont need another username in order to return after having "banned" appear under your name. I've posted the visual evidence against you in another thread, so you have already lost this little fantasy.
You were banned.
More lies...otherwise, you would have posted the evidence.
Poor child.
Until I have another username, get back with me.
BTW, what is your other alternative username(s) ?
I said I wouldn't be a bit surprise if you have other active accounts, b/c friend stick together...your friend Davey25 has many usernames.
Polaris
Hall of Fame
Hahahahahahahahahaha !
All the bullshitters that ever existed on TW are smiling from their banned heavens. This post illustrates what they have wanted all along - the degeneration of barely useful conversation into superbly inane drivel !! Why I continue to read these forums, I don't understand.
Last edited:
Hahahahahahahahahaha !
All the bullshitters that ever existed on TW are smiling from the heavens. This post illustrates what they have wanted all along - the degeneration of barely useful conversation into superbly inane drivel ! Why I continue to read these forums, I don't understand.
You can never reason with NadalAgassi. He keep trying to convince himself that Laver's 60s CS is equivalent to today's CS. The fact is 3 different surfaces <> equal to 2 surfaces with having 3 of them playing on grass. An argument that is a no win win situation but he keep fighting hard. But it doesn't matter.
Uhm, there is a motive, "he was being nice". That was your excuse for a statement by Laver which you disagreed with.
Seems like Laver can't buy your cheerleading GOAT lies for himself either, huh?
Last edited:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Agreed. He has lied and twisted his own, little non-reality so much, that he may as well be in the business of writing fiction, as it is as far removed from the truth as the random novel.
The evidence against Federer as the GOAT is irrefutable:
1. Federer himself admitted his early success was due to his chief rivals not being mature as players. With that statement, he admits he won a significant amount of his majors in a weak period.
2. History recognizes winning the Grand Slam as the ultimate achievement in professional tennis. There would not even be a debate over Federer's status if he won the Grand Slam--hence the reason many of his most nervous fanatics use the "he almost won four that year" argument to suggest he was on his way to ultimate success as a player. They would not need to cite the "almost" /last ditch argument if they were secure in Federer's accomplishments "as is."
If another catagory of Federer fanatic felt secure, random stats (such as consecutive semis reached) would never find their way into a debate, as it pales in comparison to actually winning something as important as the Grand Slam.
Obviously, they are anything other than secure.
Even in this recent thread... http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=398464 it is not Djokovic of 2011 (the topic in reference to Sampras' comment), nor Federer (of any season) who is cited as having the best season. It is Laver, for clear-as-day reasons only the worst of Federer fangirls would deny.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Uhm, there is a motive, "he was being nice". That was your excuse for a statement by Laver which you disagreed with.
Seems like Laver can't buy your cheerleading GOAT lies for himself either, huh?
[/QUOTE]He's changed his mind on that subject--one moment he supported Federer, the next, he's flipped the script, so your little stunt goes nowhere...as usual.
Oh.....seems like we're back to square one: Federer is not the GOAT.
Indeed, that's basically my point. Players who are interviewed contradict themselves and change their opinions all the time, so you shouldn't take anything they say as undeniable truth.
Indeed, according to Federer himself.
Neither is Laver, according to Laver himself - if he was truly the GOAT, he would not be "honoured to be compared to" a non-GOAT. :shock:
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
Its already been proven one does not need another username to return from a ban, so you are spinning in lies and denial of your history of being banned.
There's a reason no moderator supports your nonsese.
BTW, what is your other alternative username(s) ?
Prove it or drop it, little boy.
Don't answer with a question when you were addressed with the question. Clown!
Learn to read...i didn't accuse you of have more active accounts. I just said I wouldn't be a bit surprise if you do have a few since your friend happened to be Davey25.
Capiche ?
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
CNN ranks Laver #3 behind Fed and Sampras. They have a clue.
There is no GOAT. There are a number of players who will always be in the argument.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
That might be true, but we can say whenever a player has achieved more than other player.
Federer > Sampras > Nadal
This is kinda assumed, when you look at the data, but a lot of fanboys and girls think their subjective and emotional opinions are more important than the facts. This should be addressed appropriately as we want to live in straight - forward and coherent reality.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Just like Laver > Federer when one looks at the data. However 10 year old fangirls of Federer resort to making fun of his height, saying tennis had no competition back then (when in fact Laver faced a much tougher field to win his 2nd Grand Slam then Federer ever faced), say tennis back then wasnt a real sport, and lowball his achievement due to more slams being on grass then.
billnepill
Hall of Fame
Laver is the only one I rate as high as Federer.
Though it is striking that you don't or you are not willing to review Laver's case critically as you do with Federer.
I hope it is because you are unbelievably biased, not because you are limited in your cognition.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
THUNDERVOLLEY
G.O.A.T.
The critical study uses history and what is valued most--the polar opposite of what the Federer fangirls, who cherry pick irrelevant Federer stats, ignore the man's own assessment of his weak period of competition, and attempt to rewrite history by downgrading the Grand Slam.
Truth wins out in every case, and its a truth which drives the Federer fanatics insane with hatred and the need to waste over twenty pages posting spin jobs, lies and fantasies all to avoid the historic importance of the Grand Slam.
There is no need for spin jobs. It is a basic fact that there is no "official requirement" for GOAT. Who the greatest player ever is is basically a matter of opinion, which people use results for.
For you, the Grand Slam is the most important thing. For others, it would be weeks at number one. For others, it could be total number of slams.
You continually say that a player MUST have won the Grand Slam to be considered the best ever, but this is fallacious: if people are considering Federer and Sampras as potential GOATs (which they do, why not start a GOAT poll including Laver, Federer, and Sampras and observe the results, I can assure you that it will not be one way traffic for Laver), then evidently, as the greatest player ever is based entirely on people's opinions, one need not necessarily have won the Grand Slam.
DjokovicForTheWin
Banned
Most valued is total # slams. Ask anyone.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Gonzales and Rosewall must be included in the top 5. The top 5 is Laver, Sampras, Gonzales, Rosewall, and probably Federer. Borg is out due to his lack of a U.S Open or Australian Open, and Nadal has not achieved enough rate to rate over one of those 5. Budge, Tilden, and probably Connors complete the second 10. Agassi, Lendl, McEnroe, Kramer, and probably soon Djokovic complete the top 15.
N
NadalAgassi
Guest
Then why isnt Margaret Court considered the female GOAT by hardly anyone? Why wasnt Roy Emerson the male GOAT before Sampras or Federer (in fact most dont even rank him top 20 and he is 3rd in slams). No all that is valued is not total # of slams. That is just a new rule invented for Federer.
Emerson's slams were won pre-open era, were they not?
Mustard
Bionic Poster
Correct. Emerson was still a lot better than people give him credit for.
Similar threads
