Pat Cash: "Federer not even the second greatest in his own era"

[joohan]

They have played each other enough times under enough differing conditions over a long span of time to make H2H stats an objective measure.

Objective measure of what? Match-up un/favourability? Ability/inability to evolve over the years?

 

[egrorian]

Nadal is a freak of nature, winning 13 french opens is no joke, Borg had he continued into 80s then Lendl would have beaten Borg on clay, already Lendl had stretched Borg to 5 sets in his first clay slam, Borg is very overrated

Borg is over rated? Seriously? What nonsense. Also, there's absolutely no way of knowing that Lendl would have beaten Borg on clay post 1981. I don't see him doing so against a motivated Borg prior to 1984 or 85.

 

[Sunny014]

Novak has Federer beat in pretty much every category now and he's positioned to take the slam race. It's really hard to argue Federer > Djokovic outside of being biased.

I understand the argument for having Federer at #2 given all his achievements, but when you factor in the H2H with Rafa it's just Nadal for me. Nadal also had to contend with both Federer and Novak's peaks for his entire career.

Now looking at Rafa, he has a much better H2H against Federer, beat him consistently during their respective primes, and is 10-4 against him in slams including a winning record at both the French and Australian Opens - 2/3 slams that they've played at. Not to mention that Nadal successfully dethroned Federer at his best slam whereas Roger failed to do the reverse over and over again, even suffering a humiliating 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 loss.

Stats don't determine who is greater.

Federer only had 14 as his target and he did not know that he needed to raise it to 20 and even that would not be safe, had he known this in 2010 then he would have done everything required to add more slams and would have desperately taken it to 24-25 if he knew that would be the mark. He raised his gear in 2014-2015 after taking his foot off the accelerator in 2010-2014 period, he would have made the racquet change much before if he knew what future lies. ...... Djokovic has an advantage of being younger and due to no rivals in the younger generation .... So stats wont be enough to judge, Federer will remain greater than always until the bar is raised really high.

 

[CCPass]

Stats don't determine who is greater.

Federer only had 14 as his target and he did not know that he needed to raise it to 20 and even that would not be safe, had he known this in 2010 then he would have done everything required to add more slams and would have desperately taken it to 24-25 if he knew that would be the mark. He raised his gear in 2014-2015 after taking his foot off the accelerator in 2010-2014 period, he would have made the racquet change much before if he knew what future lies. ...... Djokovic has an advantage of being younger and due to no rivals in the younger generation .... So stats wont be enough to judge, Federer will remain greater than always until the bar is raised really high.

We don’t need another Rolex ad from you. Cringe.

 

[Sunny014]

Yes. That'll be why Federer was put out in the first round on his two attempts at the fast Wimbledon grass. Presumably?

The guy who exited in 1st rounds was not Federer, he was an immature clown.
The real Federer arrived at TMC 2003, that Federer would have won slams in any era on any pitch with any racquet..... he would have beaten Sampras on fast grass of 90s too

 

[Sunny014]

Djokovic remains a scavenger who has been vulturing on a weak generation of 90s born millennials that have no spirit.

Vs the real Gods of the 90s and 00s he would have been flop.

 

[The Fedfather]

Yes. That'll be why Federer was put out in the first round on his two attempts at the fast Wimbledon grass. Presumably?

That'll be a straw man. Djokovic went out in the 1st round in his first two AO tournaments. Your point?

 

[Sunny014]

Peak Sampras, Peak Agassi, Peak Federer, Peak Safin and Peak Nadal (of 00s before his knee injury) all have the power to take on Djokovic. On Grass even Peak Roddick of 2004 would have troubled Novak.

It is a myth that Djokovic is dominant and no one is on par/better than him.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Djokovic remains a scavenger who has been vulturing on a weak generation of 90s born millennials that have no spirit.

Vs the real Gods of the 90s and 00s he would have been flop.

Djokovic defeated Federer, Nadal or Murray for 17 of his 20 slams.

If you’re looking for a vulture, Federer is your man. Vultured 3 slams in both 09-10 and 17-18 with Nadal, Djokovic injured.

 

[Sunny014]

Djokovic defeated Old Federer, Kneeless slow Nadal or Murray for 17 of his 20 slams.

Murray is no ATG and other 2 I have corrected for you.

 

[NoleFam]

That same Federer can play on fast grass too, one and the same thing.

But he never won a match on it though, so how do you know?

 

[Spencer Gore]

That'll be a straw man. Djokovic went out in the 1st round in his first two AO tournaments. Your point?

Federer wasn't a natural on fast grass. It took a surface change -to slow grass -for him to start making any impact at Wimbledon. Same with Djokovic at AO. It took a surface change for him to start performing well at the tournament.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Murray is no ATG and other 2 I have corrected for you.

Federer won 13 of his slams without defeating an ATG at all

 

[Sunny014]

But he never won a match on it though, so how do you know?

I have seen him play Roddick and Scud in 2003 on a Grass which was tremendously fast.
Scud was the fastest server in the world once upon a time in the 1990s incase you guy don't know.
A Rod himself has a GOAT serve.
Federer tamed them both and played with ferocious speed and has beaten Sampras in 5 sets in 01 grass which was behaving like old grass.

So all this tells me that the 8 time champ and the 4 times finalist would be winning loads on the old grass too ...... Federer is born to win grass.....

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Federer wasn't a natural on fast grass. It took a surface change -to slow grass -for him to start making any impact at Wimbledon. Same with Djokovic at AO. It took a surface change for him to start performing well at the tournament.

This is objective and demonstrable. The grass was changed in 2001 if I recall correctly? That’s when Federer defeated Sampras and went on to reach 7 consecutive finals.

 

[Sunny014]

Federer won 13 of his slams without defeating an ATG at all

Djokovic has won 19 slams from 2011 vs old Fed, slower nadal and other weaklings, he never faced peak fedal of 00s

 

[Sunny014]

Federer wasn't a natural on fast grass. It took a surface change -to slow grass -for him to start making any impact at Wimbledon. Same with Djokovic at AO. It took a surface change for him to start performing well at the tournament.

According to Spencer BORE Djokovic would not have been good on rebound ace and fed would not have been good on old grass and it needed surface change to aid their dominance

LOL, go and rinse your mouth, you've spoken pure nonsense man

 

[NoleFam]

I have seen him play Roddick and Scud in 2003 on a Grass which was tremendously fast.
Scud was the fastest server in the world once upon a time in the 1990s incase you guy don't know.
A Rod himself has a GOAT serve.
Federer tamed them both and played with ferocious speed and has beaten Sampras in 5 sets in 01 grass which was behaving like old grass.

So all this tells me that the 8 time champ and the 4 times finalist would be winning loads on the old grass too ...... Federer is born to win grass.....

At Wimbledon, it's about the bounce. The grass in 2003 is higher bouncing than years before 2001. An opinion stating that 2003 is like the 90's grass is not a valid one.

 

[Sunny014]

At Wimbledon, it's about the bounce. The grass in 2003 is higher bouncing than years before 2001. An opinion stating that 2003 is like the 90's grass is not a valid one.

compared to 04-21 it is 90s grass relatively

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Djokovic has won 19 slams from 2011 vs old Fed, slower nadal and other weaklings, he never faced peak fedal of 00s

 

[GameSetDjokovic]

Guys numbers decide nothing...have you not learned that from the Rolex ad? Come on now.

 

[The Fedfather]

Federer wasn't a natural on fast grass. It took a surface change -to slow grass -for him to start making any impact at Wimbledon. Same with Djokovic at AO. It took a surface change for him to start performing well at the tournament.

Being a natural on your first tries in the big tourneys is a story of very few players. When Federer really stepped into his game he had a really great accurate serve, was great at the net - 'goid hands', had excellent movement. Federer is a high-caliber fastcourt player and has many titles, overall results on faster surfaces to show for it.

Beware, your bias is so big you can't see obvious things.

 

[jm1980]

Djokovic has won 19 slams from 2011 vs old Fed, slower nadal and other weaklings, he never faced peak fedal of 00s

Fed fan logic: Teenage Nadal who faced Federer was at his peak, but 25-year-old Nadal who would have won 5 Slams in a row in (2011 RG - 2012 RG) if it wasn't for Novak had one foot in the grave

 

[jhhachamp]

What's that?

Year end championships. You must have missed that in my previous post.

 

[Sunny014]

Fed fan logic: Teenage Nadal who faced Federer was at his peak, but 25 year old Nadal who was crushed by Novak in 2011 was slow Nadal

Yes Nadal was faster in 07-09 than he was in 2010 but by a small margin, in 2011 he was further slower and in 2012-2013 he was slower again..... 2014 onwards he was much slower .... every year Nadal has lost footspeed and his whole game is on footspeed...... Teenage Prodogies peak at like 19 and burn out by 25 unlike normal players who peak in early 20s and burnout by late 20s.... This is common sense.

 

[jm1980]

Yes Nadal was faster in 07-09 than he was in 2010 but by a small margin, in 2011 he was further slower and in 2012-2013 he was slower again..... 2014 onwards he was much slower .... every year Nadal has lost footspeed and his whole game is on footspeed...... Teenage Prodogies peak at like 19 and burn out by 25 unlike normal players who peak in early 20s and burnout by late 20s.... This is common sense.

LOL at "Nadal's whole game is on footspeed;" about the same reductive BS as saying Fed's whole game is on his serve

Riiiight... He got worse in 2010 and beyond, which surely explains why he started to make it deeper into non-clay Slams in the 2010s while he would regularly lose early outside of RG in his younger years

 

[sliceroni]

Cash is still salty for getting destroyed by Becker at Wimbledon in 88. Didn’t help that Becker was mocking him during the match (4:33 mimicking Cash lol) whatever Cash said during their handshake certainly p**** Boris off. Complete domination by Becker swatting the defending champ away like a fly.

 

[Kralingen]

One hilarious anecdote about Pat Cash is that after winning Wimbledon he lost to a 17-year old Andre Agassi in his next tournament, lol. Heart of a champion this one.

 

[Sunny014]

LOL at "Nadal's whole game is on footspeed;" about the same reductive BS as saying Fed's whole game is on his serve

Riiiight... He got worse in 2010 and beyond, which surely explains why he started to make it deeper into non-clay Slams in the 2010s while he would regularly lose early outside of RG in his younger years

Outside HCs definetly he was at his peak in 2010 or before.

On HCs he improved his game and so he was better than before, everyone knows this.

Overall I would still say Peak performance of Nadal on HCs is 09 AO, peak on grass 08 and peak on clay 08, so Nadal's peak lies in the 00s for me, the 2010s was a Nadal going down every year..... and who better than a 1 year younger Novak to benefit from this ???

 

[DjokoLand]

Djokovic remains a scavenger who has been vulturing on a weak generation of 90s born millennials that have no spirit.

Vs the real Gods of the 90s and 00s he would have been flop.

Hate this argument as I always stuck up for Fed when people attacked 03-07. Both have benefited from being miles better than the rest during certain periods. I started watching tennis in 2002 and I can tell you there is no difference in talents at both times. Just because 08-16 was incredibly stacked doesn’t mean it’s the norm at all. 2010-2012 was the highest 3 seasons in mens tennis IMO

 

[Sunny014]

Hate this argument as I always stuck up for Fed when people attacked 03-07. Both have benefited from being miles better than the rest during certain periods. I started watching tennis in 2002 and I can tell you there is no difference in talents at both times. Just because 08-16 was incredibly stacked doesn’t mean it’s the norm at all. 2010-2012 was the highest 3 seasons in mens tennis IMO

Wrong
Federer never benefitted anything, he grew up with Hewitt, Safin and Roddick and was inferior to them till 03, they won slams before him and were ranked 1 before him and it is Fed who elevated his level in 04 to move ahead of them and then Nadal arrived in 05 and from 06 onwards started competing outside clay too ..... so Fed always had it tough, unlike Djokovic who actually is an established superior guy to these next gen mugs, so his edge is like established long before these fellows even turned pro...... You cannot compare the 2, second guys like Wawrinka and Murray are not better than Safin or Roddick or Hewitt in terms of peak levels, these fellows themselves would have won 0 slams in the 2000s if he were coupled with Fed there because unlike Djokovic Federer never had a phase where he lost to pushikori or such fellows, the level was so high that Murray and Stan would win 0...... So you see the picture ???

 

[Jaitock1991]

Probably a bit harsh. Hewitt was the ultimate warrior. He didn't have the best game. But he squeezed every ounce out of what he had. He usually left everything on the court.

And afaic, that's all, we as fans, should ever expect. To me, Hewitt was the Jimmy Connors of the early 2000s.

Absolutely.

 

[jga111]

That’s what the overall H2H records say, not cherry-picked prime/peak/old garbarge.

…agree, only simple minds can handle H2H statistic devoid of context, age, peak,etc. You’re right, we must keep it basic for simple Simon

 

[Backhanded Compliment]

Peak Sampras, Peak Agassi, Peak Federer, Peak Safin and Peak Nadal (of 00s before his knee injury) all have the power to take on Djokovic. On Grass even Peak Roddick of 2004 would have troubled Novak.

It is a myth that Djokovic is dominant and no one is on par/better than him.

peak Stanimal showed that... BTW what on earth was Stanimal? all that said peak is only one measure and a difficult to define one at that. Anyways, just lobbing that asteroid into this thead... carry on internets!

 

[Shaj]

Far too many losses to his main rivals... Talented ? Yes but not the greatest of all time.. Also, had weak era midgets like Roddick,Hewitt as main challengers..

 

[Sunny014]

Far too many losses to his main rivals... Talented ? Yes but not the greatest of all time.. Also, had weak era midgets like Roddick,Hewitt as main challengers..

He dominated all his main rivals in his peak.

Djokovic is a next gen, not a rival...

 

[bnjkn]

Far too many losses to his main rivals... Talented ? Yes but not the greatest of all time.. Also, had weak era midgets like Roddick,Hewitt as main challengers..

Hewitt was one hell of a player. Definitely not a "weak era midget". What are you on?

 

[NoleIsBoat]

He dominated all his main rivals in his peak.

Djokovic is a next gen, not a rival...

Federer and Djokovic met in slams more time than anyone in history alongside Nadal-Djokovic.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I’d love to see peak Federer play cash at Wimbledon…

 

[Sunny014]

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.

Morons who feel Hewitt was weak should compare resumes of Murray and Hewitt.

 

[Sunny014]

Federer and Djokovic met in slams more time than anyone in history alongside Nadal-Djokovic.

Thats because of a weak era in the 2010s

First of all had the youngsters been strong enough then from 2014-2015 onwards they should have kicked out fed by not allowing him to reach finals or semis of slams, the fact that an old Fed could meet djokovic in the slams so many times show how weak post 2014 period was....

 

[Sunny014]

Imagine federer or nadal not arriving in 2000s and hewitt vs pete happening until 2011, they would meet so many times in finals and hewitt would have upper edge

would you call hewitt/safin and sampras as same gen rivals ? hahaha

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Thats because of a weak era in the 2010s

First of all had the youngsters been strong enough then from 2014-2015 onwards they should have kicked out fed by not allowing him to reach finals or semis of slams, the fact that an old Fed could meet djokovic in the slams so many times show how weak post 2014 period was....

It shows how good Federer was. He said in 2015 he was playing his best tennis to date.

 

[Sunny014]

It shows how good Federer was. He said in 2015 he was playing his best tennis to date.

I dont care what he said ...dont troll

 

[Spencer Gore]

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles...
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title...
Morons who feel Hewitt was weak should compare resumes of Murray and Hewitt.

Alternatively, they should compare their respective opposition.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

I dont care what he said ...dont troll

Even if you place Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian they still lose more often than not to 2014- Federer and 2017- Nadal. These GOAT level players maintained their prime form well into their 30s.

 

[Bartelby]

Peak Hewitt seems to have been a fleeting event, whereas Murray had a longer time at the top against all-time greats.

Hewitt has 2 slams, 80 weeks at 1, two YEC Tittles and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.
Murray has 3 slams, 41 weeks at 1, one YEC title and has lost 13 times in slams to the eventual champion.

Morons who feel Hewitt was weak should compare resumes of Murray and Hewitt.

 

[Sunny014]

Alternatively, they should compare their respective opposition.

Doesn't matter, murray has been a loser vs an old fed at slams, so a loser in 1 era is a loser in any era

U dont magically grow balls in another era when you lack it in your era

You smurfs need to come out of this 1 player in 1 era being better in another era kinda fantasies

 

[Sunny014]

Peak Hewitt seems to have been a fleeting event, whereas Murray had a longer time at the top against all-time greats.

Let's do a simulation for Sir Andy Murray

Murray born In 1981 instead of 1987, i.e. 6 years earlier.

Murray's 2008 USO Finals would not exist because Pete/Agassi were too good in 02, he loses in Semis.
Murray's 2009 Wimbledon Semi final run vanishes because Fed/Roddick/Scud were all better in 2003 and Fed would obv win.
Murray 2010 AO final does not exist because Fed/Safin would be too good in 2004 and would meet in finals for sure.
Murray's 2011 AO final would maybe happen if he beats Hewitt to reach final but Safin would CRUSH him.
Murray's 2012 W final also vanishes since Fedal are there in 2006.
Murray's 2012 USO win vanishes because in 2006 USO Federer would crush him in the final i.e if he reached the final because Roddick himself had been broken very less until the final, I remember it was some amazing figure, so Murray might never go past Roddick to reach the final in the first place.
Murray's 2013 AO final will happen as he might replace Baggy in the final but Fed would obviously crush him again!
Murray's 2013 Wimbledon vanishes because both Federer and Nadal were amazing in 2007
Murray's 2015 AO final won't happen because Federer and Nadal were too powerful in 2009.
Murray's 2016 Aus open final vanishes because again Federer of 2010 would be there to beat him
Murray's 2016 FO final won't happen as Soderling and Federer would again reach the finals, I dont him peak either of them to reach the final.
Murray's 2016 Wimbledon vanishes because Nadal was at his best in 2010 yet again, no chance.

Like this do the simulation for every fu*kin year, Murray ends up on 0 slams if he was in Federer's generation !!

 

[Sunny014]

^^^ Sorry for exposing Murray, I don't want to bash him but people force me to expose his true colors when they overrate him and present him as a heavyweight. I have no problem in accepting that Murray is relatively a little more accomplished than Hewitt but please don't present him as a heavyweight just because he was a better matchup for his own gen than what he would be for the prev generation. Murray and Hewitt are pretty much same, in other eras Murray would be lesser, he should be thankful to destiny for being in 87 than in 80 or 81.

Same for Stan as well, he too wins 0 slams in the 00s, infact his condition is worse than Murray, I don't see him even reaching the finals even once.