If Federer is five years younger...

[DTLshot]

It is obvious that Federer has passed his prime.

It is also obvious that Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon has entered their prime time relatively since 2008.

The question is, from 2004 to 2007, while Federer is at his prime, he is not fighting with any quality players at their prime. Only a pre-prime Nadal kept Federer from taking all the glories.

So I am wondering, if Federer is five years younger, and enter his prime at the same time as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Simon, will he repeat his 13 slam and other achivements?

Your thoughts please.

 

[edmondsm]

It is obvious that Federer has passed his prime.

It is also obvious that Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon has entered their prime time relatively since 2008.

The question is, from 2004 to 2007, while Federer is at his prime, he is not fighting with any quality players at their prime. Only a pre-prime Nadal kept Federer from taking all the glories.

So I am wondering, if Federer is five years younger, and enter his prime at the same time as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Simon, will he repeat his 13 slam and other achivements?

Your thoughts please.

The bolded statement is complete BS. Just because Roger was dominating Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, etc. doesn't mean that they were not players of GS winning potential. All of them would have been competing for slams in ANY era, but Roger was just too good.

We all watched it happen. Roger Federer played like no one else has ever played from 04'-07'.

 

[gj011]

This thread is asking for trouble

I am not touching it.

 

[msc886]

Don't take credit away from the previous generations players. Safin during 2004 is quite good and at the Aussie open in 2005 was on fire. Hewitt was faster and less ridden with injury. He also had more firepower than he had in his early days. Nalbandian was also a very good player and he was "on" more often. Roddick was better back then as well. Ljubicic was quite good but he chokes. The previous generation is quite good as well.

 

[quest01]

In all honesty I don't think so. Federer five years had Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin to deal with who are in my opinion nowhere near as good as Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. So I believe if Federer had to contend with these guys five years there is not a chance he would have captured 13 grand slams, he would be lucky if he surpassed 10.

 

[PCXL-Fan]

I think Federer would have around 8-10 now. I hope that's not unrealistic thinking.

 

[ThugNasty]

These "if" discussions are so pointless. What if sampras played against a generation of robots, would he still get 14? Who knows, right?

 

[DoubleDeuce]

This thread is asking for trouble

I am not touching it.

Wise man,

not touching it either.

 

[wyutani]

if safin was 5 years younger...

 

[autumn_leaf]

if safin was 5 years younger...

he would still be a mental mess =P

 

[Murray_Maniac]

Yes, I completely agree with ya, he wouldnt have won 13 grand slams. Ive mentioned this many times before. Fed had low competition in his prime years, unlike today. & We can all see he wasnt undefeatable in his prime, and wouldve lost more grand slams had there been more competition than Roddick, Safin, & Hewitt. He probably wouldve only won 6-7 slams at best.

 

[canuckfan]

Only a pre-prime Nadal kept Federer from taking all the glories.

only on clay, and since nadal is the greatest claycourter ever, thats not bad at all. at slams and the masters cup prime fed on hardcourts and grass was basically unbeatable. prime level fed is far better than the one-step-slow, inconsistent-forehand+volleys, can't-convert-breakpoints, ordinary-serve-returner version of fed we have seen for much of 2008.

all the internet bozos who gleefully disrespect fed in 2008 either didn't watch him much during his dominant phase or didn't understand what they saw. they allow their personal dislike for him (which is fine, you can like who you want) to poison their evaluation of his tennis game.

Prime fed on grass and hard was better than anyone except, perhaps, sampras. If you don't like him personally, too bad.

 

[RCizzle65]

Federer past his prime still brings lots of trouble to those players, and they have to play at almost their complete best to compete with him, I'm pretty sure he could still have 13, at least 10 slams.

 

[Cup8489]

only on clay, and since nadal is the greatest claycourter ever, thats not bad at all. at slams and the masters cup prime fed on hardcourts and grass was basically unbeatable. prime level fed is far better than the one-step-slow, inconsistent-forehand+volleys, can't-convert-breakpoints, ordinary-serve-returner version of fed we have seen for much of 2008.

all the internet bozos who gleefully disrespect fed in 2008 either didn't watch him much during his dominant phase or didn't understand what they saw. they allow their personal dislike for him (which is fine, you can like who you want) to poison their evaluation of his tennis game.

Prime fed on grass and hard was better than anyone except, perhaps, sampras. If you don't like him personally, too bad.

i agree. you guys are discrediting the players from the last 5 years before murray and djokovic and nadal. keep in mind that murray was slammed by nalbandian, a nalbandian quite far removed from his glory days. likewise, roddick is a shadow of his former self, yet can still prove dangerous when he's got his confidence up (see djokovic v roddick quarters USO 2008)

safin proved, and still proves, that if he's on, he can beat ANYONE. a far past his prime safin slammed djokovic into the ground at wimbledon, and made it to the semis. so much for your strong field garbage, or rather for the previously weak field.

why do you guys feel the uncontrollable need to discredit federer's abilities in his prime? did you guys really watch him at the time? federer in his prime would pretty handily beat any of the guys you think are stronger than the field from 2004-2007. it's just plain and simple. djokovic has yet to really prove he's a true match for federer (australian open i would say he played well, but to say federer was at even 90 percent in that match is folly.)

murray, unfortunately, took until this year to really step it up, so we have no idea how he would have fared against federer last year. if federer can get into better shape for next season, and gets back to what we can all agree is a high level for him, then we can decide how 'weak' or not weak the previous field was

i say all of you should get off the murray-djokovic bandwagon, yeah, theyre awesome players. but i wouldnt say better than safin-nalbandian-roddick-hewitt during the time of federer's dominance. you just can't prove it (or disprove it, so why even say it? no evidence at all.)

 

[matchmaker]

I think Federer would have around 8-10 now. I hope that's not unrealistic thinking.

I think that is quite a realistic way of thinking. This is a touchy subject but it still seems that Fed's opposition during his prime was weak in comparison to what other greats were up against.

It could also well be that Fed's prime was so high a level that he made the others look weak.

Every one will find a way to look at it, I guess.

 

[edmondsm]

Yes, I completely agree with ya, he wouldnt have won 13 grand slams. Ive mentioned this many times before. Fed had low competition in his prime years, unlike today. & We can all see he wasnt undefeatable in his prime, and wouldve lost more grand slams had there been more competition than Roddick, Safin, & Hewitt. He probably wouldve only won 6-7 slams at best.

How do you know that these players don't just look better because Federer is out of his prime. Federer did school Murray not that long ago in a GS final. He did the same to Djokovic the year before (not as bad as Murray, but nonetheless a straight set win). The fact is you don't know. The idea that Federer was playing during a weak era is just a way of discrediting his accomplishments. Any tennis expert will tell you that Federer played in a way that the sport has never seen. Hewitt in his prime was just as good as Murray is now. Nalbandian was just as good as Djokovic. These young guys are just benefitting from Federer's decline. If Federer was just now entering his prime, they would be the one's getting owned in every tournament.

 

[Nadal_Freak]

Great thread. Fed was lucky that his prime came when there weren't any consistent great players. Just Nadal on clay. Now Fed has to deal with a bunch more and no surprise that he is losing on a regular basis now.

 

[tennis-hero]

Safin in 05 would have destroyed Joker, Murray and Nadal at the AO

Fed took him to 5 (and should have beat him)

Hewitt at the US in 04 wasn't playing bad and would have been a tough matchup for anyone except Rog on fire

 

[RoddickAce]

Safin in 05 would have destroyed Joker, Murray and Nadal at the AO

Fed took him to 5 (and should have beat him)

Hewitt at the US in 04 wasn't playing bad and would have been a tough matchup for anyone except Rog on fire

Roddick 03-mid 05 was playing exceptional tennis too!

 

[luckyboy1300]

Yes, I completely agree with ya, he wouldnt have won 13 grand slams. Ive mentioned this many times before. Fed had low competition in his prime years, unlike today. & We can all see he wasnt undefeatable in his prime, and wouldve lost more grand slams had there been more competition than Roddick, Safin, & Hewitt. He probably wouldve only won 6-7 slams at best.

haha what's really funny though is that an inspired murray had difficulty beating a federer with an ailing back lol

 

[TennisandMusic]

The bolded statement is complete BS. Just because Roger was dominating Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, etc. doesn't mean that they were not players of GS winning potential. All of them would have been competing for slams in ANY era, but Roger was just too good.

We all watched it happen. Roger Federer played like no one else has ever played from 04'-07'.

I'd have to completely disagree. I think in any other era Roddick or Nalbandian wouldn't even be top 5, maybe not top ten. And Nalbandian? I mean come on...

Roger Federer, as Jimmy Connors stated, is one lucky guy. There is no way he wins 13 if he is the same age as the current young crop. 02-07 is like a giant talent vacuum for the most part.

 

[TennisandMusic]

How do you know that these players don't just look better because Federer is out of his prime. Federer did school Murray not that long ago in a GS final. He did the same to Djokovic the year before (not as bad as Murray, but nonetheless a straight set win). The fact is you don't know. The idea that Federer was playing during a weak era is just a way of discrediting his accomplishments. Any tennis expert will tell you that Federer played in a way that the sport has never seen. Hewitt in his prime was just as good as Murray is now. Nalbandian was just as good as Djokovic. These young guys are just benefitting from Federer's decline. If Federer was just now entering his prime, they would be the one's getting owned in every tournament.

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

 

[luckyboy1300]

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

this is how you see things, but results speak for themselves. you see tennis as a commodity being sold by the likes of mcenroe or others? i don't. as for the bolded part, you see that as the reason why federer kept winning and not because of his sheer talent? if fear had been the factor then there was something federer had done to instill that. just because you don't like him means you need to take away and belittle the things he had done that NO ONE else had done.

 

[zagor]

There is no way he wins 13 if he is the same age as the current young crop. 02-07 is like a giant talent vacuum for the most part.

Your opinion and speculation,nothing else.I did see your current young crop getting owned at USO though and all that against a past his prime 27 year old Fed.Let's see what next year brings,if they're all so good as you say then they should have absolutely no problems whatsoever beating Fed at slams in 2009 given the fact that he'll turn 28 next year.

Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Oh this again,yes definitely Fed only wins because players against him don't try,they beat themselves.If I had a dollar for each time I read this on this forum I'd be a very rich man.

I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was.

The fact that YOU don't understand what the big deal was doesn't mean that much really.You're in minority there as many,many people(including former players,coaches etc.)find Fed's tennis(especially during 2004-2006)very impressive.

Also since you bring up Connors please do inform guys like Laver,Wilander,Agassi,Lendl and even Rios and Goran that they have no clue about tennis as they unlike you(a random internet poster most likely biased one way or the other)are amazed by Fed's tennis(even Lendl who is not outspoken in media by any stretch said Fed was the only player he actually enjoyed watching practice and Laver for example said he was actually honoured to be compared to Fed).But as I said,they must be clueless,it's only your opinion that matters,right?

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't.

Something he isn't in your opinion.

 

[kelz]

How about... if everyone was 5 years older.

 

[ThugNasty]

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

WTH? do you watch tennis? Federer in his prime is a better player than every single player on the ATP today. The arguments you present are utter BS, federers dominance is what has inhibited roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. from reaching more grand slam trophies. I bet you that era wont seem like such a "vacum" if safin, Hewitt, and Roddick had 3 plus grand slams.

 

[luckyboy1300]

How about... if everyone was 5 years older.

if everyone were 5 years older fed would have won already 3 french opens, because nadal would have retired 3 years earlier, lol j/k

 

[svijk]

I guess the same argument can be made for Sampras too. When he played he did not have true rivals. Agassi was on/off , Courier / Chang were not in the same bracket and Goran was the best player on grass. Given this, winning 14 majors must have been a piece of cake right? WRONG

 

[mental midget]

people don't understand that if the current generation have surpassed the previous one, it's because roger absolutely set the bar, and showed them exactly how good you have to be to win with him around (even with mono or a hurt back.)

the roger of 04-07 would handle these guys just like he handled those guys. go watch youtube and ask yourself if it really mattered who was on the other side of the net for those years. the guy was RIDONKULOUS.

 

[edberg505]

WTH? do you watch tennis? Federer in his prime is a better player than every single player on the ATP today. The arguments you present are utter BS, federers dominance is what has inhibited roddick, Hewitt, Safin etc. from reaching more grand slam trophies. I bet you that era wont seem like such a "vacum" if safin, Hewitt, and Roddick had 3 plus grand slams.

People will think what they want simply because they can't stand the guy for various reasons (a big one is that certain people don't want him beating Pete's 14 record). I think it's pretty ridiculous. I mean look, I don't care for Nadal's game but it would be stupid of me to say that Nadal only got these 4 French Opens because there weren't any real claycourters around to stop him. Of course we all know that nothing is farther from the truth. Oh and the whole Federer only beat people because those people are afraid of him argument is as week as a Sprite in a booty club.

 

[NamRanger]

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWQZ306dqw


Yup, just an average backhand. That's all.

 

[luckyboy1300]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WWQZ306dqw


Yup, just an average backhand. That's all.

wtf federer's backhand was scary good!! that was your average backhand lolz

 

[edmondsm]

Great thread. Fed was lucky that his prime came when there weren't any consistent great players. Just Nadal on clay. Now Fed has to deal with a bunch more and no surprise that he is losing on a regular basis now.

Yeah with all these new, great players it looks like Nadal blew his chances to win slams that weren't on dirt. At least he got the one Wimbledon so he's not a complete dirtballer, but Wimlbedon playes like a sandbox now so that doesn't really count I guess. Maybe in a few years they will have a slam for players with orthopedic shoes and knee braces. Nadal will definitely be the favorite there.

 

[Lionheart]

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

Do you even know that Movement is one of the most, if not the most, important things in Tennis?

How would you rate Federer´s movement? Think about it and then tell me if he didn´t bring anything new

 

[gj011]

Yeah with all these new, great players it looks like Nadal blew his chances to win slams that weren't on dirt. At least he got the one Wimbledon so he's not a complete dirtballer, but Wimlbedon playes like a sandbox now so that doesn't really count I guess. Maybe in a few years they will have slam for players with orthopedic shoes and knee braces. Nadal will definitely be the favorite there.

I knew this thread will turn ugly, sooner or later.

 

[tennis-hero]

Nah, Federer has brought NOTHING new to the table IMO. Average backhand, great forehand, average volley's at BEST and a very good serve (because of accuracy). I actually started watching tennis again because I heard him being talked about...and once I saw him I couldn't understand what the big deal was. We have almost no players these days who attack, and Federer only has to deal with baselining. Many players are happy to lay down and die to him as well, losing before they even step onto the court.

Just because he is your favorite doesn't mean you need to prop him up to be something he isn't. Remember, tennis is a product and you're obviously being sold on it. What are the announcers going to say? That tennis is in dire straights and Federer is reaping all the benefits? How many people will that bring in to the stands?

If tennis is so much better these days as a whole, why is it doing so poorly? Have you seen the stands at all the major tournaments? Why are tournaments losing sponsors etc?

yeah he brought nothing to the table EXCEPT 13 slams AND counting

the most consistent player in the history of the game 18 semis and counting

 

[The-Champ]

Yeah with all these new, great players it looks like Nadal blew his chances to win slams that weren't on dirt. At least he got the one Wimbledon so he's not a complete dirtballer, but Wimlbedon playes like a sandbox now so that doesn't really count I guess. Maybe in a few years they will have a slam for players with orthopedic shoes and knee braces. Nadal will definitely be the favorite there.

Good thing sampras is not playing these days. He wouldn't win a single wimbledon trophy. His results at the new grass would have been the same as Roland G!

 

[crazylevity]

If Federer was 5 years younger...

we would call Nadal a one-weapon wonder, like Roddick.

we would call Djokovic a choker, like Davydenko.

we would call Murray a headcase, like Safin.






Well, Nadal's not that analogous to Roddick, I have to admit. But if 27 year old Federer can beat Murray and Djokovic in straights at a slam, prime Federer would mow them over like anyone else.

 

[P_Agony]

It is obvious that Federer has passed his prime.

It is also obvious that Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon has entered their prime time relatively since 2008.

The question is, from 2004 to 2007, while Federer is at his prime, he is not fighting with any quality players at their prime. Only a pre-prime Nadal kept Federer from taking all the glories.

So I am wondering, if Federer is five years younger, and enter his prime at the same time as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Simon, will he repeat his 13 slam and other achivements?

Your thoughts please.

Another lame thread by another lame *******, but I'll awnser anyway:

I don't know if Fed would repeat his 13 grand-slam record, as this is a nearly impossible task for any player at any time. I do know however, that with all players in their prime, Nobody would touch Fed as far as the #1 ranking goes. Nadal will win his FO titles and Murray and Djokovic will win a GS here and there, but Fed would still dominate the rankings and most grand-slams. Just like the guy from Eurosport said in the US Open, when Federer's game is on, nobody, not even Nadal, can touch him - and that is a pure quote.

 

[P_Agony]

Great thread. Fed was lucky that his prime came when there weren't any consistent great players. Just Nadal on clay. Now Fed has to deal with a bunch more and no surprise that he is losing on a regular basis now.

Well, Nadal was lucky that his prime came when...wait...it's over? That soon? Knee injuries? Well, goodbye Rafa, just do us all a favor and take the freak with you.

 

[NamRanger]

I'd have to completely disagree. I think in any other era Roddick or Nalbandian wouldn't even be top 5, maybe not top ten. And Nalbandian? I mean come on...

Roger Federer, as Jimmy Connors stated, is one lucky guy. There is no way he wins 13 if he is the same age as the current young crop. 02-07 is like a giant talent vacuum for the most part.

Roddick and Nalbandian were the best players of their generation outside of Federer. Roddick was born in the wrong era, where surfaces are now much slower than what they used to be. He had a period in 2003-2004 where he dominated much of the tour. After that one year, Federer appeared, as well as many of the slower surfaces.


Nalbandian is the most talented player of his crop of players, except for Federer. This isn't even a question. He mowed through Nadal, Djokovic, and beat Federer in a span of one month. Multiple times in fact. Had he put his head on straight, he could have beaten ANYONE on ANY surface. Even on grass, which is his worst surface by far, he would still be able to give trouble to Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[fastdunn]

Roger Federer, as Jimmy Connors stated, is one lucky guy.

What did exactly Jimmy Connors say ? Any reference please?

 

[circusmouse]

While we're doing "what if" questions, we could also point out that if Fed didn't have to deal with Nadal, he would have completed a career grand slam by now. But he got a little bad luck there, while he may have gotten some good luck with relatively weak competition for a couple of years.

It's also worth pointing out that Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray might never have been as good as they are if it weren't for Fed. He raised the bar.

 

[DTLshot]

Thank you all for the reply.

To sum it up,

People who answered Yes, they believe Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nabandian in their prime are better than Nadal, Jokovic, Murray, Simon in their prime.

People who answered No, they believe the current young guns are better.

People who answered otherwise, they are not reading my post carefully, they just want to bash.

That is all.

 

[Federer#1]

If "I" am five years younger, I would not have so many slams...

 

[Federer#1]

Roddick and Nalbandian were the best players of their generation outside of Federer. Roddick was born in the wrong era, where surfaces are now much slower than what they used to be. He had a period in 2003-2004 where he dominated much of the tour. After that one year, Federer appeared, as well as many of the slower surfaces.


Nalbandian is the most talented player of his crop of players, except for Federer. This isn't even a question. He mowed through Nadal, Djokovic, and beat Federer in a span of one month. Multiple times in fact. Had he put his head on straight, he could have beaten ANYONE on ANY surface. Even on grass, which is his worst surface by far, he would still be able to give trouble to Nadal and Djokovic.

Roddick was not born in the wrong era.

Regardless of the ball speed, he will still have the same problems at the net, approaching..

Nalbandian is a very good player.

 

[tennis_hand]

It is obvious that Federer has passed his prime.

It is also obvious that Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Simon has entered their prime time relatively since 2008.

The question is, from 2004 to 2007, while Federer is at his prime, he is not fighting with any quality players at their prime. Only a pre-prime Nadal kept Federer from taking all the glories.

So I am wondering, if Federer is five years younger, and enter his prime at the same time as Nadal, Djokovic, Murray and Simon, will he repeat his 13 slam and other achivements?

Your thoughts please.

no.

Federer's greatness made all the rest of ATP sub-par, not that he didn't meet quality players. there are a lot of quality players and quality matches, but Federer beat them all up.

Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero Nalbandian etc are good players at those times. and if they are younger, they can beat today's Djokovic or Murray. but they meet Federer and they look bad. And now Djokovic and murry look good because Federer has past his best, not because they are really better than Hewitt or Roddick or Nalbandian alike.

 

[paulorenzo]

wait wait wait wait.
i think about half of the people in here need to watch tennis from 1990-2008. no one played like federer in his prime. i would say that as of now,
murray and djokovic will be seen as equal to at most to roddick, hewitt and safin.

both murray and djokovic still have to prove themselves to be able to consistently beat both off par and on par federer, i mean, granted, we all see murray's potential, but as of now, one cannot assume that either can knock around a prime federer.

 

[yassarian]

If I were a couple of millions richer...

I'd be a millionare!

/ducks out of the thread.

 

[blue12]

This thread is asking for trouble

I am not touching it.

Yeah complete nonsense!