Myth : Federer thrived in a "weak era"

[Prisoner of Birth]

Federer, who was in his prime from 2004 to 2007, won 12 Grand Slams by the end of 2007. Federer detractors claims Federer was only able to dominate because he played in a "weak era" (however they define that). They seem to believe Federer wouldn't win in today's "strong era" with Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro, Ferrer, Berdych, and Tsonga in it. You can say the current "strong era" started in late 2008, after Djokovic first won his Slam and Murray made his first deep run in a Slam (which was 2008 US Open final). So let's start there, where Federer was aged 27 (and already past his prime), Nadal 22, Djokovic 21, and Murray 21 (the latter 3 in their primes or close to it).

Since the US Open 2008, Federer aged 27-31. Nadal aged 22-26.5. Djokovic aged 21-25.5. Murray aged 21-25.5

Grand Slams
Federer : 5
Nadal : 6
Djokovic : 4
Murray : 1

Masters Cup
Federer : 2
Nadal : 0
Djokovic : 2
Murray : 0

Masters
Federer : 7
Nadal : 9
Djokovic : 9
Murray : 6

Weeks at #1
Federer : 65
Nadal : 100 (being generous)
Djokovic : 62
Murray : 0

Year End #1
Federer : 1
Nadal : 2
Djokovic : 2
Murray : 0




So post-prime old-guy Federer has more than held his own in this supposed "strong era". Wonder what prime-Federer would've managed. I'm guessing he would have been just as successful as he was in his prime against the so-called "weak era". Who knows, maybe more! (Safin in the 2005 AO played better than Djokovic and Murray ever have on any surface. And Nadal would no way show that level of brilliance on Hardcourts).

So here's another myth dispelled. Federer did not thrive in a "weak era". If anything, this "strong era" should be happy they don't have to deal with the wrath of prime-Federer.

 

[FedererDropShot]

Never doubt RF.

 

[Feather]

At OP,

Are you competing with multiple accounts of NSK to make this place truly horrible? Good luck with that

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

At OP,

Are you competing with multiple accounts of NSK to make this place truly horrible? Good luck with that

How am I doing that? By posting facts and figures? What's this place for, if not for factual and reasoned discussions? Please, edify me.

 

[LittleTinGoddess]

This myth was busted a long time ago

 

[The_Order]

LOL wrong facts again. since age 22 Rafa has won:

2008: 2 slams
2009: 1
2010: 3
2011: 1
2012: 1

That's 8, nearly twice as many as Fed even though he's had to pull out of Wimbledon, the US Open and the AO.

Saying Safin at AO05 played better than Novak has on any surface is also wrong. Some of Novak's HC major matches in 2011 were at an incredible level.

And absolute peak Fed struggled to beat walking stick Agassi at the USO, imagine what peak Agassi would've done to him...

Truth is old guy Federer wasn't really that old in 2008-2010. Still in his 20's that's not old at all, not even in tennis terms.

 

[The_Order]

How am I doing that? By posting facts and figures? What's this place for, if not for factual and reasoned discussions? Please, edify me.

You've listed 2 incorrect facts so far today. Both of them in Federer's favor. LOL.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

LOL wrong facts again. since age 22 Rafa has won:

2008: 2 slams
2009: 1
2010: 3
2011: 1
2012: 1

That's 8

I was talking since US Open 2008, since that is when Murray made his first Grand Slam final. Read my OP again.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

You've listed 2 incorrect facts so far today. Both of them in Federer's favor. LOL.

I did not. What are they?

 

[The_Order]

I was talking since US Open 2008, since that is when Murray made his first Grand Slam final. Read my OP again.

No you didn't. You specifically listed Nadal at age 22. and the only time you mention the 2008 US Open is when referring to Murray's first run to a slam final. Novak won his first major in EARLY 2008 so the strong era didn't start in late 2008.

I did not. What are they?

The one I just pointed out as well as the one in the other thread where you said Federer has won 8 majors aged 26-31 which is also not true.

 

[Prisoner of Birth]

No you didn't. You specifically listed Nadal at age 22. and the only time you mention the 2008 US Open is when referring to Murray's first run to a slam final. Novak won his first major in EARLY 2008 so the strong era didn't start in late 2008.



The one I just pointed out as well as the one in the other thread where you said Federer has won 8 majors aged 26-31 which is also not true.

Read the OP again, and work on your comprehension skills. I said Federer was aged 27. So I meant starting August 8th 2008. That is clear in the OP.

And two, Federer won 8 majors aged 25 years and 5 months to 31 years. Yes, I was 7 months off. Big deal.

 

[Beacon Hill]

Myth: It's necessary to start a new thread because you have something new to add to a topic that has already been covered by approximately four hundred thousand previous threads.

 

[smoledman]

I love it. *******s comparing Nadal's prime to Fed's post-prime! Will Nadal ever win 11 slams in 4 years?

*crickets*

 

[Candide]

Nadal fanatics are going to have to make more fantastic meals with thinner and thinner soup. He may still have a major or two in him (as may Federer) but that's got to be the outside of it. From now on it's nostalgia, rhetoric and hyperbole. Cue drum roll...

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I love it. *******s comparing Nadal's prime to Fed's post-prime! Will Nadal ever win 11 slams in 4 years?

*crickets*

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

 

[smoledman]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

 

[Candide]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

That's a nice record no doubt, only a fool would say otherwise. But 'ifs' don't cut it when if comes to achievement or talent. It's Federer's physical talent and smoothness that has allowed him to maintain his level for so long. He's still beating guys like Djokovic, Nadal and Murray in his thirties when the rest of his generation is practially gone or else, like Hewitt, on their last legs. I would say that your post is affirming the motion.

 

[Flash O'Groove]

I wouldn't dare to whisper sarcasms on the future 2016 gold medalist.

 

[Gonzo_style]

OP deserves to be banned

 

[TennisCJC]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

Anyone with any knowledge of tennis should have known that Nadal's style would impact his health. After watching him play a few times when he first came on the scene, my first impression was he will be lucky to play well after 5 years on tour because his style is so brutal on the body.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

Since the US Open 2008

No you didn't.

Yes he did.

 

[Cup8489]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

I hope you're just being exceedingly sarcastic. Because you sound like NSK, and I didn't think you were.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

18 slams in 4 years sounds sarcastic.

 

[jokinla]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

I've never come across this level of *******ology before, you do realize there are only 16 slams in 4 years.

 

[tudwell]

And absolute peak Fed struggled to beat walking stick Agassi at the USO, imagine what peak Agassi would've done to him...

Hmm. He probably would've started doing meth and dropped out of the top one hundred. Then he'd really be hard to beat at the U.S. Open lol!

 

[fed_rulz]

Nadal is the only player in all time to have won 3 slams on 3 different surfaces, all that at the tender age of 25. It is not his fault if his knees are hurt, because he couldn't know that his playing style could affect his health. It is bad luck. If he hadn't so much bad luck with bad knees (Nadal couldn't know that playing RG and Wimby 2012 could be bad for his bad knees), Nadal would win 18 slam in 4 years.

this should have been sufficient to indicate that you were being sarcastic, yet the # serious "retorts" to your post astound me

 

[veroniquem]

The maximum slams he could win in 4 years is 16 I agree that if it wasn't for his knees, Nadal would have won more slams. It's a shame.

 

[DragonBlaze]

The maximum slams he could win in 4 years is 16 I agree that if it wasn't for his knees, Nadal would have won more slams. It's a shame.

His knees are a direct consequence of his playing style (and today's HC dominated tour). I really don't see what evidence there is to argue otherwise, although I'm open to suggestions.

Now if you want to say Nadal would have won more if 3/4 slams were on clay, then yes ofcourse he would.

 

[TMF]

The maximum slams he could win in 4 years is 16 I agree that if it wasn't for his knees, Nadal would have won more slams. It's a shame.

He won 11 slams by playing the style that busted his knees. If he doesn't play that style, then he wouldn't win 11 slams, but has a healthy knees. Take your pick, you can't have both way.