Krajicek: Federer dominated in 2004 to 2008 when he had no rivals

[Gary Duane]

I'm Dutch and if this is actually what Krajicek said, then the Google translation is surprisingly accurate.

Excerpt from the original Dutch article (https://www.volkskrant.nl/sport/wed...d-op-historische-avond-in-rotterdam~b456042d/):

Original Dutch:
Krajicek beseft als geen ander dat het record van Federer het toernooi in Rotterdam een meerwaarde gaf. Je zou zeggen, discussie gesloten. Federer is nu zeker de beste tennisser aller tijden. Maar bij Krajicek is Djokovic nummer 1. 'Wat Federer speciaal maakt is dat hij al zestien jaar op topniveau presteert en een recordaantal grandslamtitels heeft veroverd.

'Hij is ook de mooiste tennisser om naar te kijken. Maar zet Federer en Djokovic tegenover elkaar en Novak wint de meeste partijen. Ik vind hem nog completer. Djokovic had in 2016 alle grandslamtitels in zijn bezit, dat is Federer nog nooit gelukt. En Roger kon nu ook eerste worden, omdat zijn naaste concurrenten geblesseerd zijn.'

My translation would be:
Krajicek realises as no other that Federer's record gave the tournament in Rotterdam extra shine. One could say, case closed. Federer is now certainly the best tennis player of all time. But for Krajicek, Djokovic is his number 1.

"What makes Federer special is the fact that he's been able to perform at such a high level for 16 years and attained the most grandslam titles. He is also the most beautiful tennis player to watch. But put Djokovic and Federer against eachother and Novak wins most matches. I feel he is even more complete. Djokovic held all grand slam titles in 2016, something Federer never managed to achieve. Also, Federer was able to regain no.1 now, because his closest rivals are injured."

I definitely don't agree with Krajicek, but he's entitled to his opinion. I also agree that just running something through Google Translate can't be considered a credible source. But as I pointed out, atleast above excerpt, actually is surprisingly accurate.

I don't agree with Krajicek either, but that was never my point.

The fact that Google translate was surprisingly accurate stems from the fact that people spend more time on translating TO English than TO any other language. If you put the same kind of paragraph into Google, but in English, and ask it to translate to German, it will be a lot weaker, in some cases almost unreadable.

Furthermore, things change radically from paragraph to paragraph and from sentence to sentence. It can be very good, OK, or really misleading.

In a pinch it is a lot better than nothing. I actually looked through the whole thing, using the same resource. The full article may or may not be an accurate reflection of what Krajicek thinks over time. If you or I are asked for out opinions, on the spot, what we say is going to reflect what we think that day but may not show nuance or variation over time.

Regardless, I have never tried to or wanted to denigrate the accomplishments of any player. Federer played at an extraordinarily high level during his peak, and Novak's accomplishments during his peak were simply amazing. They did not peak at the same time. So comparing peaks is at best futile.

 

[Jaitock1991]

I just disagree that Federer’s competition early in his career was objectively weak.
More likely that very competent players were consistently outplayed by the greatest player in his prime.
Without Federer in the mix the slam landscape and field from that time period really opens up

Pretty much. Take Fed out of the equation during that time and the slam titles would be spread all over the place. We would be talking about 2003-2008 as the toughest era ever.

 

[Jonas78]

WI03-UO07: 12 slams won out of 17 (70.6%)
AO08-UO16: 5 slams won out of 36 (13.9%)
AO17-RG18: 3 slams won out of 6 (50%)

Sooo?
Most players won most of their slams during their 3-4 best years, dont know where you wanna go with those stats?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Sooo?
Most players won most of their slams during their 3-4 best years, dont know where you wanna go with those stats?

It means Federer dominates weak eras (2004-07 and 2017-18) and wasn't old in 2008-16 strong era.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It means Federer dominates weak eras (2004-07 and 2017-18) and wasn't old in 2008-16 strong era.

Stop saying 2014-2016 was "strong". Holy Jesus.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

5'10''

Shortest 2 slam winner since 1982.

He was listed at 5'11" for years. I've met him and I stand at 6 foot. He's 5'11".

Murray's too tall anyway.

 

[Jonas78]

It means Federer dominates weak eras (2004-07 and 2017-18) and wasn't old in 2008-16 strong era.

2004-2007 was his peak years, plain and simple. He got sick 2008, but came back and did well until AO10, then his prime was over.

To my knowledge no player has been on his peak for 10-15 years, so If you really mean Fed was peak from 2003-2016 thats a pretty far out point of view. Nads had what, 6 years? Djoker 5?

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Stop saying 2014-2016 was "strong". Holy Jesus.

Objectively, top players made tons of points.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

He was listed at 5'11" for years. I've met him and I stand at 6 foot. He's 5'11".

Murray's too tall anyway.

Hewitt is 3-5 inches shorter than the best players of the 2000s. He is way too short.

Murray is much closer to Djokovic, Federer, Nadal in height (1-2 inches difference), and is average for a modern top player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Objectively, top players made tons of points.

Objectively, it was a p1ss poor period with horrible players besides maybe 2-3 guys.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt is 3-5 inches shorter than the best players of the 2000s. He is way too short.

Murray is much closer to Djokovic, Federer, Nadal in height (1-2 inches difference), and is average for a modern top player.

Federer is 6'1". Hewitt is 5'11". That's not 3-5 inches shorter lmfao.

Murray is still too tall to be a counterpuncher and for his height his serve sucks. Djokovic is like 6'1.5" and his serve is way better than Mugray's ever was.

I know you're in love with him but you don't need to make it so obvious.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Federer is 6'1". Hewitt is 5'11". That's not 3-5 inches shorter lmfao.

Murray is still too tall to be a counterpuncher and for his height his serve sucks. Djokovic is like 6'1.5" and his serve is way better than Mugray's ever was.

I know you're in love with him but you don't need to make it so obvious.

Hewitt is 3 inches shorter than Federer.

 

[Djorau]

In additiin to 2 ATGs, Djokovic at least played against 2 Courier-tier players in their primes: Stan and Murray. Fed played none during his prime.

 

[KINGROGER]

It means Federer dominates weak eras (2004-07 and 2017-18) and wasn't old in 2008-16 strong era.

why is 2008 strong but 2007 weak?

Also LOL @ the notion of 14-16 being stronger than 04-05 or 07.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt is 3 inches shorter than Federer.

He's not lmao.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

In additiin to 2 ATGs, Djokovic at least played against 2 Courier-tier players in their primes: Stan and Murray. Fed played none during his prime.

Neither are really Courier-tier players.

Murray is essentially Lleyton Hewitt if he was taller.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Neither are really Courier-tier players.

Murray is essentially Lleyton Hewitt if he was taller.

Well Couriers peak was higher I agree, but career wise Murray is close

 

[Deleted member 757377]

He's not lmao.

They're listed 6'1" and 5'10"

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Pretty much. Take Fed out of the equation during that time and the slam titles would be spread all over the place. We would be talking about 2003-2008 as the toughest era ever.

Lol no, it would have looked even weaker, players like Baghdatis could have won slams.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Well Couriers peak was higher I agree, but career wise Murray is close

Courier had 76.9% of wins in 1991-93. Murray in his three best seasons (2009, 2013, 2016) had 87% of wins.

I doubt Courier's peak was higher.

Murray's career is much better. 3 slam titles, 11 slam finals, 2 olympic golds, 30-3 score in Davis Cup, 1 yec title, 14 masters titles.

Courier won 4 slams, 4 masters and didn't do much else.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Courier had 76.9% of wins in 1991-93. Murray in his three best seasons (2009, 2013, 2016) had 87% of wins.

I doubt Courier's peak was higher.

Murray's career is much better. 3 slam titles, 11 slam finals, 2 olympic golds, 30-3 score in Davis Cup, 1 yec title, 14 masters titles.

Courier won 4 slams, 4 masters and didn't do much else.

Hi I agree Murray's career was better although he does have one less slam. There is definitely more opportunity for masters etc now but I would tip Murray.

However, as far as peak, I cannot agree. Courier was the top dog for awhile, Murray was sorta kinda for a tiny bit. He has never won 2 slams in a row or felt like a dominant force the way Courier once did in the early 90s.

 

[abmk]

In additiin to 2 ATGs, Djokovic at least played against 2 Courier-tier players in their primes: Stan and Murray. Fed played none during his prime.

LOL, if Stan is Courier tier, then so is Hewitt.
Hewitt is actually better career-wise than Stan.

And if Roddick played in Djokovic's prime instead of Federer's , he'd probably have a better career than Stan's with multiple wins over Djokovic in GS. (with the probable venues being Wim and USO instead of AO & FO )

In any case, Federer past his prime was dominant over Murray & Wawrinka (particularly in GS)
Also Murray at Wim+USO ~ Roddick/Hewitt there.
He's better at the AO/RG, but again, not enough to beat prime Federer at either, so its a moot point.

 

[abmk]

Hi I agree Murray's career was better although he does have one less slam. There is definitely more opportunity for masters etc now but I would tip Murray.

However, as far as peak, I cannot agree. Courier was the top dog for awhile, Murray was sorta kinda for a tiny bit. He has never won 2 slams in a row or felt like a dominant force the way Courier once did in the early 90s.

That clueless guy probably thinks Courier was a lefty with with a big serve, LOL !

Courier mowed through a tough draw of Muster, Mancini, Medvedev, Goran, Agassi and Korda in RG 1992, losing only 1 set (to Goran)

Also mowed through AO 93, losing only 1 set in the tournament --- to Edberg in the final (Courier was dominant in the 1st 2 sets of the final, losing only 3 games in them), shellacked Korda in the QF losing only 5 games and beat Stich easily in straight sets in the semi

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Hi I agree Murray's career was better although he does have one less slam. There is definitely more opportunity for masters etc now but I would tip Murray.

However, as far as peak, I cannot agree. Courier was the top dog for awhile, Murray was sorta kinda for a tiny bit. He has never won 2 slams in a row or felt like a dominant force the way Courier once did in the early 90s.

True, but Murray had to deal with the three best players ever during all his 2008-16 peak.

 

[Thomas195]

That clueless guy probably thinks Courier was a lefty with with a big serve, LOL !

What?

 

[Djorau]

LOL, if Stan is Courier tier, then so is Hewitt.
Hewitt is actually better career-wise than Stan.

Lol, Stan, like Courier, actually beat ATGs to win Slams. In 2 of his wins, he actually beat 2 ATGs (AO14, FO15).

While Hewitt's USO win was legit, he won W2002 by beating a bunch of clowns, plus the mental midget Paper Tiger Tim Henman, on the slowest Wimbledon ever until then. Wimbledon 2002 was one of the weakest Wimbledon ever.

 

[Djorau]

True, but Murray had to deal with the three best players ever during all his 2008-16 peak.

Agree. Courier might have been Slamless in such a strong era.

 

[abmk]

Lol, Stan, like Courier, actually beat ATGs to win Slams. In 2 of his wins, he actually beat 2 ATGs (AO14, FO15).

While Hewitt's USO win was legit, he won W2002 by beating a bunch of clowns, plus the mental midget Paper Tiger Tim Henman, on the slowest Wimbledon ever until then. Wimbledon 2002 was one of the weakest Wimbledon ever.

yeah, except Stan didn't/wouldn't ever come close to being #1, unlike Courier/Hewitt.
Hewitt also won 2 YECs. Stan of course hasn't made a single YEC final.
Yeah, Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon was a weak one, but he was near flawless in that apart from a dip in the Schalken match.
Its not like that was his only good Wimbledon - he had 04, 05 and 09 as well.

 

[abmk]

Agree. Courier might have been Slamless in such a strong era.

 

[abmk]

What?

Just saying that clueless guy, @Lew probably doesn't even have a clue of Courier's playing style and hasn't even watched one match of his.

 

[Djorau]

yeah, except Stan didn't/wouldn't ever come close to being #1, unlike Courier/Hewitt.

Because his prime exactly coincided with Ultron.

Come on, 2001-2002 were transitional years. Hewitt might have not even become World No.1 if Agassi actually played in 2002 AO. 1992 was a legit strong year, however.

FO?

AO?

Djodal disagree.

Oh come on

 

[tarutani]

Krajicek is right.

4-9 in Slam finals against Nadal/Djokovic
16-1 against everyone else (choke against DelPo in 2009)

That says all you need to know.

 

[abmk]

Because his prime exactly coincided with Ultron.

Come on, 2001-2002 were transitional years. Hewitt might have not even become World No.1 if Agassi actually played in 2002 AO. 1992 was a legit strong year, however.

Bullsh*t. He just wasn't consistent outside of the slams in 2013-2016.
had nothing whatsoever to do with Djokovic. He ended 2014 as #4 (behind federer&nadal), 2015 as #4 (behind murray & federer), 2016 as #4 (behind Djokovic & Raonic (LOL!))
Stop with rubbish excuses.

FO?

AO?

Djodal disagree.

Oh come on

Except he made F in 91, SF in 92, SF in 95 at the USO.
not exactly a non-factor there.

Courier would have more than a decent shot at Djoko of AO 12/AO 13/AO 14, stan of AO 14, djoko of AO 15
Nadal of RG 11, RG 13, RG 14 wasn't exactly invulnerable. Courier would have his shot.
Neither was fed of RG 09 (thought he did play well in QF-F)

would be clearly better on the current grass than the grass of the 90s.

he had a serious problem with his arm (dead-arm, I think) ...would have better treatments in 2008-2016 than what they had in the 90s.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well Couriers peak was higher I agree, but career wise Murray is close

Many reasons for that. Peak for peak Murray isn't really much more impressive than Roddick/Hewitt.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Because his prime exactly coincided with Ultron.

Come on, 2001-2002 were transitional years. Hewitt might have not even become World No.1 if Agassi actually played in 2002 AO. 1992 was a legit strong year, however.

2001-2002 were less "transitional" than when Andy Murray was No. 1.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

They're listed 6'1" and 5'10"

Hewitt was listed as 5'11" for years until they changed it. People can lose inches as they age too. He was 5'11" at his peak.

 

[Djorau]

2001-2002 were less "transitional" than when Andy Murray was No. 1.

Early 2016 was still Ultron.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Early 2016 was still Ultron.

Andy Murray wasn't No. 1 in early 2016. He was in a similar position to Hewitt in early 2005.

 

[Deleted member 716271]

Many reasons for that. Peak for peak Murray isn't really much more impressive than Roddick/Hewitt.

Hewitt was a similar type of counterpuncher

What Murray has over him is 1st serve, but Hewitt was mentally tougher.

Pretty similar players, slight edge to Murray.

 

[NatF]

Hewitt was a similar type of counterpuncher

What Murray has over him is 1st serve, but Hewitt was mentally tougher.

Pretty similar players, slight edge to Murray.

Murray has a better 1st serve percentage but Hewitt had the better second serve.

Murray with the better backhand but Hewitt off the forehand was a bit more aggressive and generally better IMO - of course Murray has more mph when he goes for it.

I think Murray had the better return but Hewitt the better passes and volleys.

Not much in it.

 

[Jaitock1991]

Lol no, it would have looked even weaker, players like Baghdatis could have won slams.

From a logical perspective, the higher the relative level the smaller the margins. And the smaller the margins, the more difficult it will be for a single player to dominante, as only a small drop in performance will lead to a loss.

 

[Deleted member 757377]

Hewitt was listed as 5'11" for years until they changed it. People can lose inches as they age too. He was 5'11" at his peak.

At 36 you certainly don't lose inches

They corrected it. In the images he looks shorter than Agassi.

 

[Thomas195]

Yeah, Hewitt's 2002 Wimbledon was a weak one, but he was near flawless in that apart from a dip in the Schalken match

Hewitt did have an A-grade performance. However, slower grass helped him tremendously. Even though Hewitt would have prevailed in the SF in the end, he wouldn't have had such a freebie against Henman like he actually did in real life. Their Queens matches were competitive. Plus, slower grass rewarded him the worst Wimbledon finalist in the 21st century, who did not face a single serve-and-volleyer during his run. On fast grass, he might probably have to face Krajicek, although past prime, still a better test than Nalby especially if he went redlining. He might even have to face Pete.

 

[3lite]

At 36 you certainly don't lose inches

They corrected it. In the images he looks shorter than Agassi.

5'11 for Hewitt at any age is generous.

He's a lot closer to 5'9.

 

[Mustard]

Courier had 76.9% of wins in 1991-93. Murray in his three best seasons (2009, 2013, 2016) had 87% of wins.

I doubt Courier's peak was higher.

Murray's career is much better. 3 slam titles, 11 slam finals, 2 olympic golds, 30-3 score in Davis Cup, 1 yec title, 14 masters titles.

Courier won 4 slams, 4 masters and didn't do much else.

Courier was a boom and slump kind of player, even in his 1991-1993 peak. Those concentrated periods of intensity, like the spring of 1992, and the early months of 1993, he was very strong. Muster could be intense for years before burning out, but Courier wasn't like that as he'd be intense for a few months at most and often for just odd tournaments.

 

[N01E]

I mean, fedr is considered goat because of what he's done during that years. He was clear number 3 in the big 4 era, but you can't say anything against him and not get the grandpa card.

 

[Gary Duane]

Hewitt was listed as 5'11" for years until they changed it. People can lose inches as they age too. He was 5'11" at his peak.

Better: Don't trust ATP stats.

 

[zagor]

Murray has a better 1st serve percentage but Hewitt had the better second serve.

Murray with the better backhand but Hewitt off the forehand was a bit more aggressive and generally better IMO - of course Murray has more mph when he goes for it.

I think Murray had the better return but Hewitt the better passes and volleys.

Not much in it.

That's peak for peak game comparison. Where Murray blows Hewitt out of the water however is longevity. Of course people often have trouble differentiating between the two hence Hewitt is often called a weaponless pusher and Murray a born at the wrong time ATG. He reached 11 slam finals which on its own is extremely impressive, his level of play however in most of them, not as much.

 

[NatF]

That's peak for peak game comparison. Where Murray blows Hewitt out of the water however is longevity. Of course people often have trouble differentiating between the two hence Hewitt is often called a weaponless pusher and Murray a born at the wrong time ATG. He reached 11 slam finals which on its own is extremely impressive, his level of play however in most of them, not as much.

Sure, not comparing their career's here, though Hewitt's is underrated by those that like to call the early 00's a weak era. Both guys have had their share of injuries but Hewitt's more severely hampered his play, I'm not sure what sort of longevity he would have had but he was very consistent in 2004-2005 - I'm sure he could have hung around the top 5 for another few years.

 

[zagor]

Sure, not comparing their career's here, though Hewitt's is underrated by those that like to call the early 00's a weak era. Both guys have had their share of injuries but Hewitt's more severely hampered his play, I'm not sure what sort of longevity he would have had but he was very consistent in 2004-2005 - I'm sure he could have hung around the top 5 for another few years.

Hewitt's prime was definitely cut short by injuries but the end result is still the same. I think he was playing some of his career best tennis in 2004-2005 actually but just kept running into peak Fed (who was barely losing matches back then).

Early 2000s were not very top heavy but boy did they have depth. It was almost impossible to have a cakewalk draw with so many dangerous floaters around. I'm pretty nostalgic for that period these days, had such a nice mix of aging legends and legit talented young guns, exciting times.