abmk
Bionic Poster
I didn't read that. Any link ?
yeah, and that would be even more applicable vs Djokovic given he is the one who suffers from lack of rhythm the most among the trio.
Krajicek: Federer dominated in 2004 to 2008 when he had no rivals
- Thread starter Justice Underworld
- Start date
I didn't read that. Any link ?
yeah, and that would be even more applicable vs Djokovic given he is the one who suffers from lack of rhythm the most among the trio.
CentreCourt
Rookie
There's so much stupidity to this argument, don't you think?
Federer has already proven he has more longevity than the rest of the Big Four. So even if we assumed they were all the same age, yes Federer may have won less titles 2004-2008 (he'd still have won the Wimbledons and US Opens and maybe would have dropped one or two of the AO titles), he'd just be winning even more slams now that the rest of the Big Four were no longer competitive and he was.
So, on reflection, he'd probably end up with even more slams than he has now. He'd have both the 14 and 15 Wimbledons. He'd have won the 2013 and 2014 AO and the 2015 USO.
Federer has already proven he has more longevity than the rest of the Big Four. So even if we assumed they were all the same age, yes Federer may have won less titles 2004-2008 (he'd still have won the Wimbledons and US Opens and maybe would have dropped one or two of the AO titles), he'd just be winning even more slams now that the rest of the Big Four were no longer competitive and he was.
So, on reflection, he'd probably end up with even more slams than he has now. He'd have both the 14 and 15 Wimbledons. He'd have won the 2013 and 2014 AO and the 2015 USO.
Edgecrusher
Professional
I love this kind of thread ... 
Who's Krajicek to talk about tennis??? Listen to all those tennis experts here!!!
Some things will never change. It's enough to check the threads every 2 years.
Who's Krajicek to talk about tennis??? Listen to all those tennis experts here!!!
Some things will never change. It's enough to check the threads every 2 years.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
"We've seen odd matches like Stakhovsky beating Federer one year, where the guy's played serve-volley all the time and kept putting pressure and pressure all the time," Stich, who retired a year before Federer turned professional in 1998, told the Sports Illustrated Beyond the Baseline podcast.
"I have not seen any of the top guys these days hitting passing shots over five sets. I think they won't.
"I have a philosophy. If I lose the first set let's say 6-2, and I see that my tactics don't work, well I try something different. Because it doesn't matter if I lose 6-2 or 7-6 – as long as I lose, it's a bad result.
"So I might as well try something and give myself the chance to come out as a winner. When players came off court losing against Roger and saying 'it was a pleasure to lose against Roger Federer', that's where I feel like, wow, please.
"That's not the competition you want to have on the tennis court. No matter how good the guy is, just take some risks. Try to get away from your comfort zone and try something out. If you lose, well, make it better the next time."
https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/how-do-yo...el-stich-outlines-attacking-blueprint-1660752
He also wrote this many years ago:
"I reckon I'd have beaten Federer on grass. Now no one has the right game"
see link: https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2006/jun/27/tennis.wimbledon20062
Pheasant
Legend
Stich is quite delusional. This sounds like another retired player with sour grapes. Neither Lendl or Agassi had a better net game than Federer. And yet, Stich was 1-6 vs Lendl and 0-6 vs Agassi. Lendl even beat Stich on grass. Lendl finally lost to Stich in 1993 when he was way past his prime and was losing to scrubs anyway.
As far as Fed goes, he was only 19 when he beat the 4-time defending champion at Wimbledon on the fast grass with a the same 85 inch Wilson racket. Now granted, Sampras wasn't at his peak. Even if this version of Sampras beat Fed 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, I still wouldn't give take Stich's comment seriously. This green version of Fed dealt with Pete just fine. And Pete was hyper-aggressive. What people don't realize about peak Fed is that a massively underrated part about his fast- court game was his return of serve. Fed was incredible at returning serves with interest. And he only got better. He broke Roddick a ton when he was on.
And Federer still played some Serve and volley players during his run incredible run from 2003-2008. People forget that Federer once had a 65 match winning streak on grass. That streak was ended by Nadal, a guy that was the opposite of Stich.
As far as Fed goes, he was only 19 when he beat the 4-time defending champion at Wimbledon on the fast grass with a the same 85 inch Wilson racket. Now granted, Sampras wasn't at his peak. Even if this version of Sampras beat Fed 6-0, 6-0, 6-0, I still wouldn't give take Stich's comment seriously. This green version of Fed dealt with Pete just fine. And Pete was hyper-aggressive. What people don't realize about peak Fed is that a massively underrated part about his fast- court game was his return of serve. Fed was incredible at returning serves with interest. And he only got better. He broke Roddick a ton when he was on.
And Federer still played some Serve and volley players during his run incredible run from 2003-2008. People forget that Federer once had a 65 match winning streak on grass. That streak was ended by Nadal, a guy that was the opposite of Stich.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Players who aren't comfortable at the net can't change tactics by coming to the net often.
That's the problem.
Also, its ironic : 3 guys SnVed against fed that Wimbledon (2006) and failed to come close to disturbing fed : Henman, Mahut and Ancic.
Stich would need fed's return+passing to be off to take him out on grass. Only a puncher's chance, IMO.
If he thought taking Fed out on grass is the same as taking Becker/Edberg out, he was sorely mistaken. As good as those 2 guys were on grass, Fed's just better.
Re : "I have not seen any of the top guys these days hitting passing shots over five sets. I think they won't."
I don't know what the hell Stich is on about here. If Fed/Djoko/Nadal/Murray et. al are playing well, they'll hit passing shots over Bo5 with the modern racquets.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
So this is the original? They could at least have come up with a few convincing points about his game, what is this for instance? "Roger never tries to win the point with the first volley." LOL, ok....
World Beater
Hall of Fame
when fed first came on the scene, both krajicek and stich were extremely complimentary, and very deferential and humble in their praise of fed.
I think over the last 5-6 years, while fed has been merely "good" and not "great" and ceded the spotlight to nadal and djokovic, their image of the great man has been dented..its nothing more than the recency effect. eventually fed will retire and all these past critics will become fawning pundits again praying for the next fed, and how all the players coming up suck.
I think over the last 5-6 years, while fed has been merely "good" and not "great" and ceded the spotlight to nadal and djokovic, their image of the great man has been dented..its nothing more than the recency effect. eventually fed will retire and all these past critics will become fawning pundits again praying for the next fed, and how all the players coming up suck.
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
Translation from the Dutch:
"Federer was so much better than the competition 2004-2008 that he had no rivals. He was that good. Truly amazing. GOAT."
"It has happened before where a player has so dominated for a period you could say he had no rivals but for 5 years ? Unprecedented."
R.Krajicek, the Netherlands
"PS, I'm not concerned that Fed isn't going to play my rinky dinky 500 tournament ever again"
"Federer was so much better than the competition 2004-2008 that he had no rivals. He was that good. Truly amazing. GOAT."
"It has happened before where a player has so dominated for a period you could say he had no rivals but for 5 years ? Unprecedented."
R.Krajicek, the Netherlands
"PS, I'm not concerned that Fed isn't going to play my rinky dinky 500 tournament ever again"
Last edited:
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
When Fed first came on the scene he actually played more in the forecourt
Then not only did he become a baseliner, but proved you can be very successful doing so on every surface. When Fed fans whine about baseline robots, they seem to forget who showed them the way
World Beater
Hall of Fame
I don't think its fair to call fed just a "baseline" player. he is definitely an all court player, but his attacks start from the baseline, rather than at net because he has such a great fh.
in previous eras, you could just slice and come in up the middle and find consistent success. nowadays, you have to be in a clear dominating position or else you will get passed. Fed definitely attacks the net on short balls and has shown his ability to finish at the net. is he Edberg or rafter at net? No. but he is pretty good - certainly better than krajicek and stich who I followed when I was younger.
Sampras felt this very well when he played the next gen of baseline players - Hewitt, safin etc. yes Sampras was not as spry, but he commented numerous times on the next gen of baseline players with the new tech advances made his style that much harder.
there is literally nobody out there at the top of the game playing s/v consistently. if it could be successful, there would have been a player by now who would have exploited it...
in previous eras, you could just slice and come in up the middle and find consistent success. nowadays, you have to be in a clear dominating position or else you will get passed. Fed definitely attacks the net on short balls and has shown his ability to finish at the net. is he Edberg or rafter at net? No. but he is pretty good - certainly better than krajicek and stich who I followed when I was younger.
Sampras felt this very well when he played the next gen of baseline players - Hewitt, safin etc. yes Sampras was not as spry, but he commented numerous times on the next gen of baseline players with the new tech advances made his style that much harder.
there is literally nobody out there at the top of the game playing s/v consistently. if it could be successful, there would have been a player by now who would have exploited it...
Tshooter
G.O.A.T.
The Green Mile
Bionic Poster
Exactly, lol....
Tennis_Hands
Banned
I love this kind of thread ...
Who's Krajicek to talk about tennis??? Listen to all those tennis experts here!!!
Some things will never change. It's enough to check the threads every 2 years.
If I received a dollar for each absurd statement and wrong prediction from ATGs of the game (forget Krajicek), I could buy myself yet another very nice car, and have spare change for a fancy dinner.
Tennis_Hands
Banned
Actually he has a point.
Of course when you go to the net after hitting a good approach groundstroke, the point is often basically over and the obvious thing to do is to put it away.
However, when serving and volleying, Fed often guides his first volleys away from his opponents, very similar to Ancic. Meanwhile, guys like Sampras or Krajicek esssentially pounded their first volleys, and Edberg and Rafter were even more than that.
CentreCourt
Rookie
That was a particularly hilarious highlight. Guy is holding serve in about 1 and a half minutes every game at Wimbledon.
RS
Bionic Poster
2 men in Federer and Djokovic who have reached at least 4 RG Finals and had over 80% winning percentages on Clay in their peaks?
Yet, Hewitt, Safin and Roddick have also been to multiple hardcourt/grass slam finals only to be stopped by Fed.....
Going by Stitch’s definition of rivals, Nadal had no clay rivals for his entire career.
Pretty double standard to consider Fed and Djoko as Nadal’s clay rivals yet dismiss Fed’s rivals as weak-era clowns.
Last edited:
RS
Bionic Poster
I agree. But Federer has reached 5 RG Finals which is the same more than Roddick has at Wimbledon/USO/AO. Djokovic has reached the same amount of F on Clay than Hewitt has and more the Safin has. I think Federer and Djokovic have shown they are more impressive on Clay even.
Krajicek put it into simple terms as "rivals" but there are certain complexities behind it.
Its because of sudden fall of top players shortly after rather abrupt surface changes in 2003-2004.
He dominated until new breed of tennis players who grew on new surfaces and system.
It's kinda similar situations from 2017 when there was sudden fall of top players due to injuries (kinda freak accidents).
Yet again he is winning slams now but not sure if the injured group of (real) top players fully recovers.
Credits to Federer who maintained high level of tennis for about 15 years by now (maybe except a year or two).
But it looks like its going to be hard for Federer to get away with the image, IMHO.
Its because of sudden fall of top players shortly after rather abrupt surface changes in 2003-2004.
He dominated until new breed of tennis players who grew on new surfaces and system.
It's kinda similar situations from 2017 when there was sudden fall of top players due to injuries (kinda freak accidents).
Yet again he is winning slams now but not sure if the injured group of (real) top players fully recovers.
Credits to Federer who maintained high level of tennis for about 15 years by now (maybe except a year or two).
But it looks like its going to be hard for Federer to get away with the image, IMHO.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Who were the top players that suddenly fell off? What were the specific surface changes in 2003/2004?
Hewitt fell off in 2003 but that had nothing to do with the surfaces, he was back to his best the next year. Ferrero fell off in 2004 due to injuries but 2003 was his best year. Safin was injured in 2003 but found form in 2004 and early 2005. Of course Roddick had his best years in 03-05.
Top players fell off in 2006 that's true, mostly due to injuries but not in 2003-2004.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Wasting your time trying to reason with Ultradr/Fastdunn.
zagor
Bionic Poster
Credit to Sampras for keeping a high level on grass for 10 or so years (beating up on chokers and baseliners) until he faced with legit competition (albeit in very raw from) and got his 4 year streak snapped. Smart man for choosing not to hang around, no more Agassis with pedestrian serve or Piolines for him to feast on.
Not necessarily. Fed/Djok may be great at clay but its their least successful surface.
You have to bear in mind that Hardcourt is much more competitive than clay. Most players have preference for hardcourts.
Lol, OP is not very bright. He had no rivals, because he dominated, not the other way around. This is what happens when you dominate, you have no rivals. If Djokovic and Nadal dominated, they wouldn't have rivals. Sort of like Nadal on clay, he prevented others to win RG titles, so he didn't have any rivals on clay.
By the OP logic nobody can ever be the greatest, because if someone wins 50 majors, his competition would look weak too. Great logic.
By the OP logic nobody can ever be the greatest, because if someone wins 50 majors, his competition would look weak too. Great logic.
I agree. Not due to injuries.
Due to surface changes in 2003-4 at Wimbledon and US Open.
Not "fell off". Federer suddenly rose to the top. And Nadal debuted into already slow and bouncy conditions.
Neptune
Hall of Fame
Says someone billionth behind Krajicek in tennis.
RS
Bionic Poster
One of the highest peaks though
D
Deleted member 629564
Guest
[content deleted by user]
Last edited by a moderator:
Red Rick
Bionic Poster
Biotic
Hall of Fame
martinezownsclay
Hall of Fame
deleted
Break To Win
Semi-Pro
Is it just me or does Kraijcek have some resentment towards Federer?
I never saw him give a compliment or a nice word.
I never saw him give a compliment or a nice word.
Holmes
Hall of Fame
He gives nice words in the OP.
mental midget
Hall of Fame
agree. hard to say 'more complete' but day in, day out...you could certainly say the game style he's perfected is the most effective. i've said this before, part of fed's greatness is that he managed to win as much as he did playing essentially high-risk tennis.
