edmondsm
Legend
I wish I could respond, but all the proper rebuttals have already been stated by Zagor and co.
If Federer is five years younger...
- Thread starter DTLshot
- Start date
I wish I could respond, but all the proper rebuttals have already been stated by Zagor and co.
Yes. YES! Sadly this kind of insight is rare.
edmondsm
Legend
grafrules
Banned
Where on earth does Simon come into the discussion at this point. He reached the top 7 despite an ordinary 6-4 record in grand slams this year, not even once making it past the 4th round. Even with his final appearance in Paris he is only 14-9 in Masters events. He attained such a high ranking mostly with the benefit of alot of points of great success in very small tournaments.
He had a golden opportunity to win the Masters Cup with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all either fatigued, injured, or in subpar form in some way. Yet he still couldnt even beat a fatigued and sluggish Djokovic in the semis.
At this point he is not better then any of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, or Safin in their primes. Nor is he worthy of being mentioned alongside Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. He has to prove he is even not a flash in the pan as a top 10 player, let alone someone who is mentioned in the same sentence as any of those group of guys.
He had a golden opportunity to win the Masters Cup with Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray all either fatigued, injured, or in subpar form in some way. Yet he still couldnt even beat a fatigued and sluggish Djokovic in the semis.
At this point he is not better then any of Roddick, Hewitt, Nalbandian, or Safin in their primes. Nor is he worthy of being mentioned alongside Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray. He has to prove he is even not a flash in the pan as a top 10 player, let alone someone who is mentioned in the same sentence as any of those group of guys.
edmondsm
Legend
The OP is trolling. It's most likely a Nadal fan that started another profile in January when Tsonga beat him in Australia. Unable to face the boards, he/she started a new profile so that they could post with utter anonymity. How's that for an armchair psycho-analysis.
In any case. This thread sucks.
zagor
Bionic Poster
I actually don't mind someone thinking that Fed is an average player or he sucks or whatever as long as they don't act like their opinion is a common knowledge,a fact or some general consensus(or that anyone who disagrees with them is a blind Fed fanatic or something)because if anything it's the other way around.Many former tennis greats who have nothing to gain by saying Fed is great drop tons of praise on him and no I'm not including Mcenroe and other comentators who try to sell the game.
This crossed my mind as well.I mean he's a nice guy but what is he doing in this conversation I have no idea.If anyhing atleast he has to do SOMETHING at slams before being discussed in the same breadth as Safin,Roddick,Hewitt,Ferrero etc. I know someone will say he beat the big 3 this year but the thing is so did Roddick(and in his worst year since 2002 to boot),in fact Roddick beat Simon pretty handily when they met at Paris this year(where Simon even had the crowd on his side).
I think that both Djokovic and Murray have potential to be(or are already)great players but Simon still has to prove himself a lot more.
Last edited:
jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
No the OP is right, how is Roddick a quality player? No back hand can't volley basically nothing more than a super power serve and forehand baseline game, and to think they call Nadal one dimensional.
Nalbandian doesn't even enjoy tennis seeing it as only a way to make money. Out of shape almost his whole career, tennis is certainly not first in his life. He would be amazing if it was his passion like other players.
Hewitt is like a smaller weaker lesser version and less depth than Murray and Murray has not even full matured yet. Don't get me wrong Hewitt is an amazing back board, with amazing placement but that is it.
Safin!? Are you serious???? This guy has all the talent in the world and non of the heart or brains. Look at his results, what is that crap. Safin can be the best and the worst all in the same tournament LOL
Finally look no further than seeing Roddick and Nalbandian who have actually far far improved their games being pushed right out by the larger talents. You can't argue with that sorry.
Nadal_Freak
Banned
I guess Beijing is blue clay and Queens is green clay as well. Whatever makes you feel more comfortable as being a Nadal hater.
Last edited:
Yes, agree. That's just my opinion. But I do see great things gonna happen to Simon.
edberg505
Legend
I just don't see how the OP's statement is correct. If this era was so weak and Nadal (according to some people here) owns Federer on every surface, then why doesn't Nadal have 10+ slams by now?
wangs78
Legend
I think Fed would have dominated almost as much as he did. If you don't count 2008, Fed went 12-2 at Grand Slams. I think if he had to face Djokovic, Nadal and Murray in their primes during that stretch, this might have gone to 10-4. In my view, he's clearly slowed in the last year (i.e., is not as quick on his feet) and he's shanking balls more. You have to remember that Fed faced VERY good players in their primes such as Safin, Roddick (who if not for Fed, would have at least 3-4 GS titles now) among others.
Now, I do think that the combo of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic in their primes are probably better than the combo of Safin, Hewitt, Roddick and Nalbandian in their primes, but honestly I don't think the difference is that huge. Among all of these players I would still say that Safin is the most talented, with Murray at #2.
wangs78
Legend
Players CAN'T attack as easily today because the baselining has gotten so much better. Throw any of the top attacking players from the days of yore (including Sampras) into the game today and they wouldn't be nearly as effective as they were in an age when surfaces were generally faster, and racquet/string technology made the game less dependent on power. Things have changed. If Fed played in the 1980s or 1990s, I think he would have had just as much success as he's had in the 2000s. If you put Sampras, Edberg, Becker, or McEnroe into today's game, probably only Sampras would still be successful (because of his serve). It's not that today's players don't have the ability to do what previous generations did in terms of attacking, it's that today's game makes it much harder. How do you volley as effectively when groundstrokes are hit a few feet, instead of inches, over the net with tremendous topspin???? YOU CAN'T.
rubberduckies
Professional
Of course Murray and Djokovic could not beat a prime Federer. If and when they defeat him, he will not be at his best. He will either be sick or injured or playing the worst tennis of his career, right? Take for example Murray beating Fed in 2006. It was a first round match, so it doesn't count at all. Such unfalsifiable statements are the luxuries of being a frontrunning Federer fan.
Roddick and Hewitt were weak competition because they gave up on beating Fed after 1 year of dominance. They started crowning him GOAT after his 4th major.
edmondsm
Legend
If it was all about Roddick's serve then Karlovic and Guccione would be in the top 10. Nadal is one-dimensional, he just moves better then everybody, and that is the most important aspect of modern tennis.
Complete opinion. I agree that Nalbandian has not looked motivated the last couple years, but he has not "been out of shape his whole career". He has a stellar 5 set record.
Amazing backboard, amazing placement= pwning Sampras in USO final. Hewitt was a great player in 04'-05' and Federer absolutely killed him in the 04' USO final. Murray will never touch Hewitt's mental game, which is arguably one of the best ever.
Safin played outstanding against Federer a few times and still got owned. Go watch the 2004 Aussie final.
.
Roddick improved? Anybody who has been watching tennis knows that Roddick's forehand is a shadow of it's former self. In 2003-2004 it was a world-beater. Now, probably not even top 20.
I guess Beijing is blue clay and Queens is green clay as well. Whatever makes you feel more comfortable as being a Nadal hater.
You know I was just trolling Nadal_Freak, and this thread was asking for it.:twisted:
Last edited:
I like this quote. Because I watched that entire murray fed match in 2006. Based on your post, I also know that you did not. Fed played worse in that single match than he did in his matches this year against mardy fish, gilles simon, and radek stepanek. Murray is at heart a softballer with tremendous counterpunching ability and feel. But in murray's match at cincy 2006 there was hardly any counterpunching at all. He played a smart, glorious retriever game and it worked. Fed was off that day, had just won toronto, had previously won cincy, and went on to blitz the us open a couple weeks later. Murray played well enough to allow fed to self destruct that day. That individual loss does not mean fed of 2006 was overhyped. It means he had a terrible day, and he paid the price against a smart player. That was one of only 5 losses that year against 92 wins. What! Yeah, that's no good at all.
paulorenzo
Hall of Fame
hold on bro.
frontrunning federer fan?
are you shiittttting me? i am in no means a strongly biased voice in this forum for federer or any other player. you need to slow down before jumping to conclusions that hold no substance to back them up. look up my statements on this forum.
secondly, my argument was that federer did not face 'low level' competition prior to 2008. you are trying to make it seem like i am trying to cover up for federer's shortcomings with injuries or sicknesses- which i am aware happens in to all pros.
all i was trying to put out there was that roddick and safin especially were not push overs and would have a great chance of holding their own weight in todays field if the hour glass was reversed, hypothetically. in no means am i saying would they'd be on federer's or rafa's tier, but they could have, without a doubt in my mind, hit with djokovic as well as murray and work them to an extent.
i believe that that eventually, unless, they become slam winners, players like tsonga, gasquet-whom i admire most, del potro, and guilles simon would just become just like every player who has risen to the top ten when they were hot, but have not pushed the limits. your ljubicic's, ancic's, coria's and such. history tends to repeat itself. that is why yesterday's competition seems weaker than today's, the new guys havent been given a full, career evaluation span of 8-10 years, more like just 2-4 years- while players are hot.
granted, tsonga and del potro and muller and others still have time on their side.
my_forehand
Professional
Federer, IMO, would **** those guys...really (aside from Nadal on clay, and maybe grass)
GameSampras
Banned
I dont think its necessarily be just a result of rogers age as it has been the influx of finally some GOOD PLAYERS. Lets face it... If Djoker, Murray were still young or Nadal was, Fed would only need to worry about guys he used to worry about, Baghaditis, Gonzales, Roddick, Hewitt, Headcase Safin, Nalbandian, Stepanek, Robredo, and all the rest of the old crew. Fed would still be winning 3-4 slams a year if he had the same competition he had 3-4 years ago. Players have got better, Nadal has improved. Murray and Djoker are better than the players Fed USED to play
GameSampras
Banned
Fed looks like the same Fed to me minus a little of his movement. Regardless of what anyone would like to think, If Djoker, Murray, and Nadal werent around he would have 4 slams this year. Or if Nadal was not in HIS prime yet, Fed still wins 3 out of the 4.
Murray, Djoker, Nadal are better players than the clowns of Fed's 03-07 era. Gonzales? Baghaditis? Roddick? Blake? Old Man Sciatica back Andre? Robredo? LOLLLL.
Murray, Djoker, Nadal are better players than the clowns of Fed's 03-07 era. Gonzales? Baghaditis? Roddick? Blake? Old Man Sciatica back Andre? Robredo? LOLLLL.
vincent_tennis
Professional
this is like asking if Einstein was born 10years after his brith, would have been a genius. A Genius is a genius u cant compare the times.
sunnyIce
Semi-Pro
without fed to raise the level of the game, the others would NOT have evolved to be as good as they are now. they owe a lot to fed. they had age on their side to watch and learn. its easier to look ahead and learn. its impossible for fed to look behind and learn. thats why everything that goes up eventually comes down.
we might be reliving this situation 4 yrs from now, when some 16 yr old now will take out nadal and the rest.
we might be reliving this situation 4 yrs from now, when some 16 yr old now will take out nadal and the rest.
Similar threads
