The top 7 players in those days trying to compete against the modern field is like a top 7 high school basketball players competing at Duke University.
Pat Cash: Djokovic is better than Federer at his best
- Thread starter 5555
- Start date
The top 7 players in those days trying to compete against the modern field is like a top 7 high school basketball players competing at Duke University.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Great argument. That's like me saying "well oranges are better than apples, and i know this because I eat grapes, bananas, and grapefruit."
IE, it's not based on anything at all.
The only people who have truly valuable opinions on the levels of Federer and Djokovic are those that actually PLAYED against Federer and Djokovic.
Cash is not among that group. End of story.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
It's not an interesting debate, you're a nincompoop who assumes his opinions are facts and explains everything that he doesn't agree with as being 'yeah it's that way, on paper'. IE, you have no idea how to engage in a logical debate and instead continue to make a fool of yourself, coming up with ridiculous 'arguments' and acting as though you're making crazy statements that we should all just agree with.
The majority of the tennis community worldwide doesn't agree with you. Pat Cash has some sort of issue with Federer, and that could very well be the reason for his opinions. Same as you. Biased, jealous, etc.
Get off your couch, go get a life. Stop obsessing over why Federer isn't as good as everyone thinks he is.. because he really is.
Flash O'Groove
Hall of Fame
You make my point: we can say that x won against y either because x is so good (we are then in a strong era), or because y is a joke (we are then in a weak era) --> talking about the "thoughness" of an era make no sense.
And I don't get why you label me as a Nadal fan. I implied that he had no real opposition, and thus not much merit.
DRII
G.O.A.T.
You've just contradicted yourself in your own post. Nothing is 'totally true', yet still a theory.
The so called 'era fallacy' is a weak and arbitrary response that is totally out of context of this and other qualitative comparisons; and therefore should not even be mentioned in this discussion.
It is essentially an attempt to cleverly disguise a statistical devolutionary default position that is meant to benefit the status quo -- and nothing more...
What kind of specious comparison is this? Edberg and Becker weren't even on the tour at the same time as Borg. McEnroe and Connors were far from their best after 84. Edberg never reached number 1 until the 90s. You're collapsing an entire decade of top tennis players into a single "era" and arguing that, because that entire decade has more top tennis players than the current field, it was stronger, when in reality those "Magnificent 7" peaked at vastly different times, some not having any overlap in their careers at all.
merlinpinpin
Hall of Fame
Who cares? You still haven't understood the question. The other players weren't part of the discussion, were they seven, fourteen or two hundred.
KneisslDestroyer
New User
Unreal...cannot trust a guy who models underwear!
Patty Cashie better realize whats up...Roger is better than anyone anyone when they are at their best vs his....hands down. Is Patty boy still hurting from the drubbing Mats gave him in the Aussi open? C'mon matey you never got into the upper echelon for a reason, you got no game, a cool headband does not equate to a good game.
Patty Cashie better realize whats up...Roger is better than anyone anyone when they are at their best vs his....hands down. Is Patty boy still hurting from the drubbing Mats gave him in the Aussi open? C'mon matey you never got into the upper echelon for a reason, you got no game, a cool headband does not equate to a good game.
kiki
Banned
kiki
Banned
Maybe, but never had tennis such richness and variety.
S&V all time greats like Boris, Mac and Edberg
Agression from the baseline with Connors and Lendl
Great defense from baseline with Borg and Wilander
and a nice mixture of rackets and very different surfaces.Not to mention highest ever ratings....
kiki
Banned
I just compared tennis from 1980-1989 ( 9 years) to 2003-2012 ( 9 years).And portrayed who was who and what did they get, no matter when did they peak.it is impossible to have all greats peaking at once ( many wouldn´t be that great, if that happened), but you can have a decade perspective and, with a broad mind, you can reach a conclusion.
kiki
Banned
The 1950´s top 6 read: Pancho,Rosewall,Kramer,Sedgman,Trabert and Hoad
The 1960´s top 4 were: Laver,Rosewall,Gonzales and Hoad
I like comparing decades, and I find 1953-1962 and 1980-1989 much stronger than 2003-2012 ( or 1930-1939, for instance)
The Dark Knight
Legend
Personally I think today's era may just be the best ever. You have possibly the greatest grass court player of all time , possibly the greatest clay court player of all time , and possibly the greatest hardcourt player of all time ( I think Joker will be that in the future ).
But I digress ,
The fact is Federer has not won a gs since 2010......no one can disagree .
As to why is where the debate begins.
There are two camps:
1- Fed has gotten older
2- the competition has become more fierce.
I'm from the second school of thought. Nadal has been around and has taken quite a few slams away from Roger. And now you have the Joker.....and viola Fed is ranked #3. There's a reason for that and that reason is simply Nadal & Djokovlc .
TopFH
Hall of Fame
And Federer's age.
firepanda
Professional
The standard constantly improves. Federer hasn't gotten any worse: Nadal and Djokovic has simply improved around him and the rest of the field are more capable of denting his armour. Same applies for Sampras, Agassi, Borg, McEnroe and the rest. The current 100 could thrash any player pre-1990, even accounting for differences in racquets.
Federer has said in an interview that his backhand and serve is the best it's ever been. McEnroe in his autobiography said something along these lines in reference to Hewitt. The act one man was dominant for a very long time says nothing about the overall standard of the era itself, since it's all relative.
Federer has said in an interview that his backhand and serve is the best it's ever been. McEnroe in his autobiography said something along these lines in reference to Hewitt. The act one man was dominant for a very long time says nothing about the overall standard of the era itself, since it's all relative.
Oh, well, in that case, you forgot multi-slam champions like Andre Agassi, Marat Safin, and Lleyton Hewitt, as well as slam-champions and former World No. 1s like Andy Roddick and Juan Carlos Ferrero. Doesn't make the comparison as stacked, does it?
10is
Professional
How old are you? Even my 11 year old brother would never think of uttering such nonsense.
sunof tennis
Professional
or a biased mind....
Gonzalez(at least prime) is before my time, but I have seen the Laver, Hoad, and Rosewall and personally think that Federer, Nadal, and Joker are better than Rosewall and Hoad (laver is certianly debatable). The physicality, the speed, and power of these modern players is mind blowing.
The Dark Knight
Legend
Omg......even better than Laver. He was tiny .
Come on guys this is a no brainer .....you can't compare eras that far apart.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
I think the biggest problem with what Pat Cash said is that The Dark Knight is an idiot. He's incapable of forming a cohesive body of reasoning behind what he says, instead jumping all over the place trying to pick holes in minor details here and there but wont accept people showing how major parts of his logic (let's just be charitable and call it that) are flawed.
It may be an apt time to refer to an old saying, there is a reason you have two ears and only one mouth - because you should listen more than you speak. The Dark Knight's problem is he thinks he can listen with his mouth.
It may be an apt time to refer to an old saying, there is a reason you have two ears and only one mouth - because you should listen more than you speak. The Dark Knight's problem is he thinks he can listen with his mouth.
The Dark Knight
Legend
You subscribe to the strategy of the best defense is an offense....
You can't really engage in a meaningful discussion but you want your way...so like a little child stamping his feet and having a tantrum you have to resort to name calling.
This is a discussion and it should be fun.....you should enjoy the back and forth of it all.
Pat Cash is not a hater or anything ....he has a valid opinion ...you have every right to disagree with it and discuss it.
However just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you have to behave like a child. You can't force people to agree with you.
I respect the proposition that Federer is the goat.....it's logical to say so and a strong argument can be made for it ; however like Pat Cash I see another point of view....one that I personally agree with it.
But as I said before to have a meaningful and enjoyable discussion in the true sense of the word both parties have to agree to have the discussion.
You obviously do not want to engage in a discussion but rather only hear your own point of view. And if you can't get your way you stomp your feet and have a temper tantrum calling people names.
FlashFlare11
Hall of Fame
It's about time you made a sensible post. At least you realize here that your opinions are just that; opinions. Your goal (at least it seemed) was to make it a fact that Federer wasn't as good as Nadal and Djokovic. It's not a fact; it's an opinion. So long as you maintain that, you will encounter less trouble here.
Bobby Jr
G.O.A.T.
The issue is you don't seems to consider points unless you made them, however salient they may be. You want to hear stuff with confirms your theories while the bulk of the board who know much about tennis and bother to post are probably left wondering how on earth you come up with what you do - conveniently ignoring huge swags of history, thinking and reasonable thought-process while expecting the minor, side-acts you pick up on with regards to tennis as somehow more significant in the overall scheme of things.
But you agree with the ex-pros whose opinions coincide with yours and ignore the vast bulk of the ex-pros who do think Federer is the GOAT. Awfully convenient way to convince yourself your theories have merit.
Feather
Legend
This should end all discussions. Very true
5555
Hall of Fame
No player played more against Federer and Djokovic than Nadal, so let's see what he said about Djokovic's level of play in 2011:
"It's probably the highest level of tennis that I ever saw"
Link http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/19112011/2/tennis-nadal-returns-unfamiliar-role-underdog.html
The Dark Knight
Legend
I have consistently acknowledged both points of view.
As far as ex pros .....it's important to see when they have said what.
In my opinion we were all fooled and thought Federer was better than he actually was due to a lack of competition.
Nadal was brushed off with a "bad match up theory" but that went out the window when we see that Joker has raised his level as well. We now see that there is yet another level above Federer.....
Federer is #3 because he was shown the door.....it was slammed in his face by Nadal and Joker . To me this is obvious.
Pat cash statement is important because he has made it now......
I'd like to see what the ex pros are saying today about Federer given the raising of the bar by Nadal & Joker......I wonder if they still think Fed is the GOAT? We know that Pat Cash does not and we also do know that Federer is in fact #3 in the world.
Dude, Federer is slower and less explosive now than 6 years ago. He mantains a very good shape at 30 years old, but he is NOT as fast as he was in his prime and those few hundredths of a second late is crucial in tennis.
Federer MAY think he is better now than 5 or 6 years ago (because in fact he may be better in some aspects), but "those hundredths of a second late" all the time overweight any other aspect of the game.
You put current Federer in 2006 and no way he wins 12 tournaments and reach 16 finals out of 17 tournaments.
I've seen this thing with ALL the professional players since I started watching tennis in the late 60s.
There were moments where McEnroe (in 1989, in 1990, in 1992...) thought he was playing some of the best tennis of his life, but he was clearly slower and it showed.
Sampras said one time that the USOPEN'12 Sampras was better than the 1995 Sampras, and again, it may be true in some aspects, but he was clearly "2 and a half steps slower" (Sampras was extremely fast in his youth in fact, something many people don't remember) and that overweight any other thing. I can tell you that USOPEN'12 Sampras would never win 10 tournaments and every big title he played during 7 months as 1994 Sampras did).
Even Agassi, that played much more smarter since 1998 (not hitting that hard, cutting down the UE but playing control aggression at the same time) and mantained a great level even in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, he was "2 or 3 steps slower" than in 1995 and he could not do things he did in 1994 or 1995 because he was getting late to the ball when forced.
Another important thing is that when a player is reaching 30 he can still play absolutely great tennis for some match or even several consecutive matches in some tournament, but he can not sustain his highest levels for long periods of time as he could do in his youth.
So Federer being nº3 in the world at 30 years old is a testament of his greatness.
When Agassi was nº3 Year End in 2001 (he was 31 y.o. ) it did not mean that Kuerten ( then nº2 ) and Hewitt ( then nº1 ) were better prime players than prime Agassi. It meant that Agassi at 31 was still good enough (though not as good as in 1994 or 1995 for example) to be in the top-3 of that other era.
Just the same when Connors was top-4 in 1987 at 35 y.o., he still was good enough to be among the 4 best players of that other era (but he was nowhere near as good as he was in, say, 1974 ).
Federer MAY think he is better now than 5 or 6 years ago (because in fact he may be better in some aspects), but "those hundredths of a second late" all the time overweight any other aspect of the game.
You put current Federer in 2006 and no way he wins 12 tournaments and reach 16 finals out of 17 tournaments.
I've seen this thing with ALL the professional players since I started watching tennis in the late 60s.
There were moments where McEnroe (in 1989, in 1990, in 1992...) thought he was playing some of the best tennis of his life, but he was clearly slower and it showed.
Sampras said one time that the USOPEN'12 Sampras was better than the 1995 Sampras, and again, it may be true in some aspects, but he was clearly "2 and a half steps slower" (Sampras was extremely fast in his youth in fact, something many people don't remember) and that overweight any other thing. I can tell you that USOPEN'12 Sampras would never win 10 tournaments and every big title he played during 7 months as 1994 Sampras did).
Even Agassi, that played much more smarter since 1998 (not hitting that hard, cutting down the UE but playing control aggression at the same time) and mantained a great level even in the years 2001, 2002 and 2003, he was "2 or 3 steps slower" than in 1995 and he could not do things he did in 1994 or 1995 because he was getting late to the ball when forced.
Another important thing is that when a player is reaching 30 he can still play absolutely great tennis for some match or even several consecutive matches in some tournament, but he can not sustain his highest levels for long periods of time as he could do in his youth.
So Federer being nº3 in the world at 30 years old is a testament of his greatness.
When Agassi was nº3 Year End in 2001 (he was 31 y.o. ) it did not mean that Kuerten ( then nº2 ) and Hewitt ( then nº1 ) were better prime players than prime Agassi. It meant that Agassi at 31 was still good enough (though not as good as in 1994 or 1995 for example) to be in the top-3 of that other era.
Just the same when Connors was top-4 in 1987 at 35 y.o., he still was good enough to be among the 4 best players of that other era (but he was nowhere near as good as he was in, say, 1974 ).
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Pat Cash never thought Federer was. And if you think Federer hasn't declined at all since the age of 26, you have no idea about prime Federer, obviously.
tennis_pro
Bionic Poster
hahaha, watching tennis since 2011, are we?
just wait another 4 or 5 years when Nadal and Djokovic are a step slower, then come back to me and say that Raonic, Tomic, Harrison (or whoever there is at the top 5 years from now) "raised the bar".
10is
Professional
Lovely post!!! I think its pretty clear that the people who try to argue against this rationale as a rhetorically empty exercise in futility and dumbassery simply do so to try and denigrate Federer's accomplishment for whatever reason. I don't for a second believe that most of them actually believe what they type. Of course there are some who truly are mentally handicapped which is why they merely imbibe some "truth" as they know it based on illogical emotive reasoning and start spewing it ad nauseum in a loud illiterate manner whilst stuffing their fingers in their ears, in a humiliating attempt to try and validate their own skewed world view.
Last edited:
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
Absolutely not. You and your 20+ avatars on the forum have had a single point agenda which you keep parroting every other time.
Yes. In much the same way prime Davydenko was able to routine Rafa on hard-courts. Maybe he was better competition and a different level to Nadal as well ?
Of course the fact that Fed is 30+ and is noticeably worse than in his prime has nothing to do with it ? Hell, he's having trouble getting across Ungur and Mahut -- perhaps they also represent the "increase" in competition ?
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
NatF
Bionic Poster
lol...Federer was #3 in the world not 3 weeks ago and is very close in points compared to Nadal. Slammed in his face my ass.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
He's also won more titles than Nadal this year, 4 to 3. Interestingly Murray is at number 6 in this year's race, and the top 3 are within 600 points of each other in it.
During 2004-2007 prime Fed he never let Nadal overtake his #1 position. The gap between them was huge and Nadal was never a threat. However Nadal today couldn't hold off old Fed from overtaking him at #2. Strong or weak competition, these two guys are competing against the same field and Roger is more successful.
kiki
Banned
Federer says his BH is even comparable to Connors,Agassi,Laver,Budge or Ken Rosewall´s? really?
Now, I can see way he is considered by many the sorest ever loser.
kiki
Banned
Really? If Roddick,Ferrero or Hewitt had played agaainst the best players of that decade, none of them would have made it to the top 10.No way.
sunny_cali
Semi-Pro
BS. Where did he say that ? Source ?
No. But it does show why everyone on TW thinks you are a sorry liar, who hasn't watched tennis after 1980.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I say no way does anyone from the 90's beat Roddick, Ferrero and Hewitt. No way.
See how easy it is to make a baseless argument without using facts?
Now, try to actually make a real argument.
kiki
Banned
The fact that me, and some other posters watched tennis from 1970 till now, shouldn´t be something you are mad at, rather a source of knowledge.At least, I would if I was in your position...otherwise, I may seem as much a sore loser as the Swiss idol...
kiki
Banned
Well, Edberg or Becker had more talent in their pinkies than the addition of Hewitt,Ferrero and Roddick...any poster who saw them at their peak, can tell you why...
The Dark Knight
Legend
If Joker and Nadal were always playing at this level do you honestly think Fed would have won 16 slams?
If your honest the answer has to be no.
I personally believe Roger would be #3 at any age.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
Talent in their pinkies you say? How can you honestly say that? How do you know?
Oh, that's right. You don't actually know that. You're just assuming your opinion is fact.
You're as annoying as ben123, no ability to make an argument, but instead post meaningless crap.
Cup8489
G.O.A.T.
I personally believe Federer would still have 14 majors or more, because, unlike you, I've seen his peak form, and recognize that if he was playing Djokovic or Nadal on those same courts, he'd still win (pointing out the fact that Nadal didn't ever get far enough to face him in those big events, so it's irresponsible and ignorant to suggest he would if he had a 'do-over')
Federer's speed in his prime, coupled with his ability to hit through the court even better than today, would go a long way to negating the speed of Djokovic, who would be forced to try and match Federer's offensive abilities, as he did in 2007 and 2008, with only minimal success.
kiki
Banned
It would be boring to go shot by shot, untangible by untangible because, at the end, you wouldn´t understand anything.Suffice it to say, READ MY LIPS, THEY HAD FAR MORE TALENT IN THEIR PINKIES...
Oh, that's right. You don't actually know that. You're just assuming your opinion is fact.
Similar threads
