Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by Jamin2112, May 31, 2012.
Without Nadal it was weak as well. That's my point!!!
I thought that 2009 was so tough that Nadal or not Nadal Federer would struggle, ain't that right?
If 2012 was so tough, what if you take out Nadal and Djokovic? Federer at 31 would dominate the tour, what does it say about the opposition?
It hasn't changed at all since then, only Djokovic has gotten tougher and Federer weaker.
I've already stated before. If a past prime Fed can still be #3 and even reach #2 at this stage sure doesn't say much about the strength of the current field in compare to 2004-2007. The old guys like Davydenko, Roddick, Ljubicic have managed to beat prime Nadal/Nole. And when did the last time we saw Tsonga playing his best tennis like he did in 2007 AO? An overhype Murray who's suppose to be one of the core piece of this era has been disappointing.
Ummmmm mr TMF a.k.a "The Master Federer"
Did you also vote for Federer in the poll and picked him to win the whole FO?
We all know you love Fed and it's hard to follow ....but face the undeniable fact :
3 goats > 1 goat.
You havent heard, his new TW nickname is The Master of Fail. The Master of Fail suffers from chronic foot in the mouth disease, who knows how many diseases he has by now.
Oh man....I cheated and checked back in before page 100, but when you say 3 goats, are you suggesting that Djoker is now a serious contender for all-time GOAT?
While I can see him having the potential if he can keep up his 2.0 level performance (which he has not really been able to do so far this year), it seems a bit premature to just outright label him as as 1 of 3 GOATS at this stage....
But on the other hand, I probably have tougher qualifications than you, because I am only now accepting Rafa as being someone who can be casually be tossed around as a serious GOAT, after his unprecedented triumph today
Stubbs might achieve better movement by putting her hair into a pony tail or something.
3 OPEN ERA GREATS ARE BETTER THAN 1...
Yes Joker is definitely a contender.
If he would have won today I think he would be THE GOAT.
We have different criteria .....some people just count up the number of slams and say automatically "well fed had 16 so he is the goat".
I personally don't agree with that at all.
I agree that Fed having 16 doesn't make him the GOAT (and many others agree with this, since there are huge amounts of people who think Laver is GOAT, regardless).
I cannot see any way, however, that Djok is anywhere close to being a GOAT based on simply winning or losing today. I applaud your simple approach to things...win today, June 11, 2012 you are the GOAT...lose, and you are not...incredible, and it all boils down to Rafa (who I should mention...WON today, June 11, 2012 and rewrote the history books )
I think you do as talking about the Fed era is your only occupation here.
Well he didn't win. But lets just say he would have.
First of all he would have been the first since laver to win "four in row"....in my book as good as a calendar slam. There is nothing in tennis harder than winning the calendar slam much less doing it with Federer and Nadal the goat of clay......so yeah that would have done it for me.
Second clearly not the goat.....joker is on the road in a big way. And he is doing it with Fed and Nadal in the mix . To me that says a lot .....it's a lot more than "I won 16 slams 4 of which were against Roddick "......it says a whole lot more.
Lol.....luckily I have my smart phone and in between breaks rather than doodling I just comment here. It's about as easy as sending a text message.
Why do you always dismiss post that counter your arguments?
I'm not.....I'm just fristrated because I can't seem to make myself clear.
Who cares about the rest of the field.
No one is competition for joker , nadal and fed except themselves.
That's my point. We might as well not even have a tournament and just have these guys play each other and skip on to the semis ( throw in Murray or Delpotro or something).
But the rest of the field just doesn't matter. That's why I say "who cares ".
TDK will ignore it (as everything that is against what he thinks)
This is the guy that Federer beat in wimbledon that year.
I don't know if you can dispell it. I mean lets just say he was fortunate to gather the majority of his slams before Nadal was a threat on EVERY surface and before Djokovic came into his own. No doubt he would have significantly less slams if that was the case
That's all I'm saying.
Try it another way.....
Nadal skips Wimbledon and voila it's Roddick and Fed yet again.? Coincidence.....
Well Nadal is not in the FO final and voila Fed has won his one and only FO.
It's simply without Nadal Federer had no competition and vice a versa.
Now with Joker in the mix the competition has increased threefold .
So it doesn't matter what the rest of the field is like because it almost always comes down to these three players .
Please, talk about that video. What you saw there?
It's because of the field that we see the same 3 players reach the latter stages of tournaments.
You can't pick up a tennis player and take him out of the context he came from. Would Nadal have been as successful at Wimbledon if he was the same age as Sampras and had to face him in his prime at Wimby / USO?
Would Djoker 2.0 have arisen if he'd been the same age as Fed and had to face Fed in his prime when he was in his prime? Possibly not, as Fed held his own against Djoko as late as 2008 and 2009 USO and it took until 2010 - 11 when Fed was clearly past his best for Djoko to start beating him consistantly in slams.
All players deal with the circumstances and rivals they face. Fed is in some ways unlucky to have such a strong generation come up only 5 years younger than him - w/ Sampras the next strong generation was 10 years younger. Similarly today, so far the generation following Novak-Rafa-Andy has only Roanic as possibly serious prospect, and maybe Tomic eventually, no hot prospects on clay at all.
Let's just respect all the great players and their accomplishments.
You will have a point if Nadal and Djokovic keep winning for another couple of years. Until then, Fed would've have it tougher in his early/mid 20's but way easier in his late 20's/30's looking how still damn good he is in his age.
Why did Federer take advantage of such a weak field, not a very stand up guy.
Why didnt Novak and Rafa make it to finals against him? What Jerks, not giving him the opportunity to beat them more often..
That may be true ?
I used to think that Federer was not of this earth until my eyes were opened and I saw that the field was so weak Federer seemed better than he was.
Could that be the same issue with today's field? I suppose it's possible?
When did you start watching tennis?
Because trust me, Roger was really that good.
Top post. Federer can bully Roddicks, Hewitt's, baby NAdals & Baby Djokers. Once NAdal & joker matured, we are very well able to see what happened to the so called great.
Over achieved with his weak backend and none of the idiots from Previous era could not even see it and were just falling on his feet. I wish Nadal would break his GS records and shut the crowd once for all! That day will come.
Why can Nadal and Djokovic be "babies" even when they play well in their youth but Federer is still playing prime tennis even though he's clearly declined?
How is it clear? I don't think it's clear at all.
Feds playing awesome .....he has never been injured. At 25 I would say that Nadals knees are way older than Feds.
Roger is clearly one of the GOATS....no disrespect .
But 16 slams good?? I'm not so sure.
Ummm...he has 16 slams. Therefore, he was that good.
No, it's more a testament to how good Agassi was in 2005, even in his mid-30s. Same thing for Jimmy Connors in '87. JC was ranked #4 at years end. Other top 10 in that year included Lendl, Edberg, Becker & Wilander. Does the presence of a 35 yo Connors diminish that era?
Is any era that does not have 3 or 4 dominant players constitute a weak era? How about the rest of the Golden era field? Other top players in 2005 included Davydendo and Nalbandian. Roddick was still in his prime while Hewitt and Safin were still going strong. Federer and Nadal were at the top. This is hardly what I would call a weak era.
But the point that I was really making previously was that Agassi, in 2005, perceived Federer as the best he had ever come across. There are some here that claim that Federer is only great because he had no real competition. I believe that Agassi was saying otherwise.
Go watch every match Roger played from 2003-2006. You will recognize how wrong about him you are.
of course, time stood still and when Nadal and Djoker matured @ 25, Federer was still 25.
what a moron!
He was like a lion among sheep; better to wait until a tiger and grizzly show up and then see what happens!
But.. weren't they part of the field then?
They were cubs then...
Nadal was 20 years old in 2006 and ranked #2 in the world the whole year, and you're trying to say he was "only a cub"?
Federer was an exceptional tennis player back then (and greatest of all time), but to be honest, beating who he beat to wins slams made it like 10 times easier.
It's like if Michael Jordan played on a junior varsity team: he's so far ahead of everyone else that it's basically unfair.
So, you believe beating an inform Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Carlos Moya, Marat Safin, Juan Carlos Ferrero, Andy Roddick and a young Nadal is an easy task?
Federer is part of the field now yet you dismiss him as competition because he is older, not in his prime, etc......It is funny how many of you seem to regard an 18-20 year old Nadal as way better than a 28-30 year old Federer when one reads your assessments of the two eras and the competition in them. That in itself is quite telling, and also something that you dont even realize you are indirectly doing.
Ha ha, that was funny...
No, it's like Michael Jordan playing against who he did and then ignorant individuals (almost a decade later) saying he played in a weak era because he didn't face off against the likes of Kobe, LeBron etc. or even taking into account his later out of prime form (when he wasn't half the player he used to be) and extrapolating that to his prime form relative to his peers at the time in an attempt to erroneously prove how lackluster his competition was during his prime.
The field had more threats and was a bit deeper during Fed's heyday. (Safin, Hewitt, Old Agassi, Roddick, Younger Rafa developing outside of clay still, Young Djokovic etc).
But in terms of the level that Nadal and Djokovic have brought for the past few years... Not even close. I guess it depends on your definition of "tougher". Does depth and more threats equal "tougher" or do two unstoppable studs and the top two best in the world equal "tougher". I don't know
You don't have as many talented guys littered in the draw but if you want to win a slam today you gotta go through these two. Thats a tough obstacle with the level they have been playing at and doing it on slower, higher bouncing surfaces which make them even stronger
This is exactly what I believe as well. There are differences between today's field and Federer's field, but the difference does not lie in strength. The field today is top-heavy, with the top four making the semifinals of every slam with relative ease. While the level of the top four is incredibly high, everyone below them is pretty easy for the top players to handle. In Federer's prime, the field didn't have as many top players as consistent as today, but what it did have were incredibly talented players and multiple slam winners, all of which could make a slam final or upset the top players. It was a more trecherous road to the semis of an event than it is today.
Ummmm ..... No.
It was the vacuum era.... When sampras retired it left a vacuum .... That's why guys like ferrero and roddick were the number 1 players in the world.
Or you had 35 year old Agassi who quite literally could barely walk. He limped out fo the French , skipped Wimbledon, and then got shot up with so many drugs that a heroin addict would be shocked,.....some how this pathetic 35 year old man made it to the finals of the us open.
Others like safin were great but not consistent. He was great one day and insane the next.
Roddick the one dimensional wonder....
Hewitt a hasbin .a...a guy who style was antiquated .
Blake another one dimensional player who made it to the top 10 proving how weak this era was.....
It was a transitional period after samaras retired . Pathetically bad.
It was not top heavy medium heavy or bottom heavy.....it just was weak,
"Novak Djokovic, the French Open runner-up, would probably be the first to tell you that Roger Federer's triumph at Roland Garros in 2009 was not just remarkable, but danged lucky. The all-time Grand Slam singles champ got to win the title without having to go through Rafael " Peter Bodo
Welcome back, Volley King! How was the ban?
No one included 2003 in the discussion. So I don't know why you bring up times when Ferrero and Roddick were No. 1. Everyone admits 2003 was a transitional period. We're not talking about that year (which, by the way, is not an era).
You didn't see Roddick play prior to 2010 so no point in discussing him.
Hewitt's style was antiquated? How? Aren't there still counterpunchers today (Do you know what a counterpuncher in tennis is?)
You didn't see Blake play before 2011, so no point in talking about his game either.
Agassi pathetic at 35? So many questions to ask here but I know they won't have responses.
Separate names with a comma.