No, I only plead for more objectivity and more respect for those greats who played before open era.
Roger : best ever, The four of us? That’s a really difficult call.
- Thread starter tennissportsrog
- Start date
No, I only plead for more objectivity and more respect for those greats who played before open era.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Most all time greats e.g. the oldies who played a very different game to the modern one? Yeah ok, it's simple biology that when playing modern tennis (and alot of sports infact) you're going to peak physically in your mid 20's. You think Rosewall, Laver and Gonzalez could play predominantly baseline rallies for a decade and not lose footspeed?
abmk
Bionic Poster
post #436 , open era, best years are from 22-25 (or to extend it a bit further 21-26 ) what more proof do you want ?
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showpost.php?p=7237297&postcount=436
Last edited:
NatF
Bionic Poster
BobbyOne is too ignorant to accept that. He'll just belittle all those on that list...
abmk
Bionic Poster
I just want to see how much he keeps on avoiding , whether he comes up with another gem like the one in my signature .....
he avoided the plenty of examples of federer touch shots that me & others posted as well ........
Last edited:
zagor, Your endeavour to teach TMF honours you.
Regarding crtiticism towards Federer: The whole tennis world is praising Federer as the of course GOAT. There is only a minority of experts and fans who doubt this status. Be generous and let pc1, kiki, me and maybe a few others giving their opinion and views. Thanks.
Most people(sane one) disagree with you. Tennis is way more physically demanding today. Most events are play on hc which further breaks down their body. On average players today retired at the earlier age than in the 60s because their body can't take more beating even though they are more fitter. Many players end up playing in the senior tour.
Other sports like hockey and NFL are also more brutal today.
abmk
Bionic Poster
here, put it this way , to see if it sinks in :
no one is saying federer is the "undisputed" GOAT here ........you can have arguments for select others , but to say he isn't even in the conversation for it , like you do , is plain foolishness .......
When were Nadal's best years?
abmk
Bionic Poster
2008 and 2010 .......
but surely you should know that, shouldn't you ?
why are you even asking that question ?
NatF
Bionic Poster
2008 and 2010
qindarka, Thanks for this explanation.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I've no problem with a few minority that doesn't believe Federer is the goat, just like I have no problem with a few who doesn't believe Jerry Rice or M. Jordan isn't the greatest player. My issue is with others like you(and kiki) who can't accept other's opinion that doesn't share your view, especially with vast majority of fans/experts/historians believe Federer is #1.
Forza, you are of course right. I'm sorry. My error comes probably from the fact that the GOAT losing a set to a nobody sounds like losing a whole match.
World Beater, Yes, it's a pity that Rosewall did not win W. but it's NOT a blame in his career as you and others suggest.
forzamilan90
Legend
That you twice wrote Federer lost to the Tunisian player.
Carsomyr
Legend
Regarding peak/prime of players now compared to players of the past:
Tennis of the 60s and 70s was much more of skill game rather than an endurance game. That is to say, Laver was likely declining physically in 1969 and possibly 1967 as well. Yet since tennis was largely a skill game, that means that:
1. Players could peak later in their careers. Since the long rallies of today were exceptionally rare back then, players' bodies were better preserved. It's true that they played a lot more then, but with hardly the same physical demands of today.
2. Players with the best skillsets were often the best players. Laver could have peaked physically in 1964 or 1965, but had better results later in his career because he was still the most skilled player. In fact, he was likely more skilled later as he had been on the tour ever longer. I think Federer is more skilled today than he was in 2005 or 2006, but tennis today rewards footspeed, athleticism, and powerful groundstrokes, all facets of which have declined in Federer's case.
Tennis of the 60s and 70s was much more of skill game rather than an endurance game. That is to say, Laver was likely declining physically in 1969 and possibly 1967 as well. Yet since tennis was largely a skill game, that means that:
1. Players could peak later in their careers. Since the long rallies of today were exceptionally rare back then, players' bodies were better preserved. It's true that they played a lot more then, but with hardly the same physical demands of today.
2. Players with the best skillsets were often the best players. Laver could have peaked physically in 1964 or 1965, but had better results later in his career because he was still the most skilled player. In fact, he was likely more skilled later as he had been on the tour ever longer. I think Federer is more skilled today than he was in 2005 or 2006, but tennis today rewards footspeed, athleticism, and powerful groundstrokes, all facets of which have declined in Federer's case.
in which la la world are you in ........
here, go through this thread and see if that strikes a little bit of sense into your head
http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=453446&highlight=falstaff
here are pictures that might help you , even if only a tiny bit ...
abmk, I must concede your stats are convincing.
In older times it was much different.
The GOAT should exceed his prime a bit...
abmk
Bionic Poster
yes and no .....
I will just point out where I disagree ......
I think the change came about in the mid-70s with powerful flat/heavy groundstrokers like borg, connors,vilas etc
federer is no more skilled now than he was in 2005-06 ..... he had all the shots in the book back then ; heck, he had them even in 2002-03 .....he has them now .....
Where is the missing logic in my post???
NatF
Bionic Poster
Rosewall never played a bad set against a lower ranked player?
Federer has won slams since leaving his very best years. He retook #1 from Prime Djokovic...He has exceeded his prime.
Carsomyr, ranking Federer lower than other players does not mean one is a Federer hater. Why should I hate Roger??? He has not yet insulted me as some of the Federer fantics have already done...
abmk
Bionic Poster
thank god !
yes, that is exactly was what I, krosero, zagor etc have been saying to you for ages ...
you notice no one else has more slams than him from 26-40 in the open era, including the late bloomers or outliers in lendl & agassi ?
he took #1 ranking away from djokovic ( & nadal ) when he was nearing 31 ?
borg burnt out/lost his motivation at 26 ...... don't you think federer has lost atleast a bit of motivation at 31 now ?
mac didn't make a single slam final after the USO 85 and he was only ~26 then ?
wilander didn't make a single slam final after USO 88 and he was only ~24 then ?
etc etc ...
just because someone says federer's peak years are 2004-07, doesn't mean he wasn't very good after that ... just that he wasn't at his best after that ....
you could "argue" his prime was from when he won his first Wimbledon in 2003 till AO 2010 , but its without a question that his best years were 2004-07 ...
Last edited:
NatF, In your last point you are right: I don't stand that experts rank Federer above Rosewall who had a better record and less weaknesses.
Gentlemen like krosero and pc1 take me seriously and refuse to insult me...Relax, Bobby. Your true colors are starting to show through again.
I checked the match and Federer was still the winner, learn history!
Edit: I removed my quote since your post got deleted.
How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?
Hi ignorant: Rosewall was 41 and truly not No.2 player even though he was ranked that way in a short streak!
Thanks for this "argument"...
And I can't rank you as an expert or intelligent man...
abmk
Bionic Poster
again, no one here is saying you can't/shouldn't rate federer lower than a few others ... just that you cannot leave him out of the GOAT conversation ...
its downright insulting/ignorance when you say federer doesn't have touch shots, when part of the reason he's that famous or why people like his game that much is his ability to produce "magic" shots consistently , including touch ones ......
After TEN years they can, I concede.
How is a 41 years old player can still be #2 on the the pro tour is astonishing. Today's competition would never allowed that, and a player at that age only compete on the senior tour.
abmk
Bionic Poster
you said hewitt's/roddick's/davydenko's matches vs djokovic/nadal were when nadal/djokovic were still "young" ...
I said they played matches even when both had matured ....even krosero was referring to those matches ....
I concede I don't care about current tennis like you. I concentrate on earlier decades where I can cope with you to say it noble...
I'm not sure he was wrong with his words.
Carsomyr
Legend
The 60s and early 70s, I meant. Connors is an aberration, one that can partly be explained. For the early part of his dominant run, he played players like Laver, Rosewall, Newcombe, and Ashe, who were S&Vers (who arguably all saw their best results around the age of 30) and thus the points were not destined to last long. He would also play against Mac and Edberg in the 80s, where the story is the same. He was also no stranger to netplay, and ventured in far more often than most players today. With Borg and Vilas, who competed in one of the longest rallies in FO history, the story is not much different than players today: retired or nonfactors by the age of 30-31.
Federer could have used shots those shots back in his dominant period, but often didn't. Partly because he didn't need them. But he uses the drop-shot, fake drop-shot, and percentage plays more often now out of necessity to stay at the top of the game.
Dan, Rosewall f.i. ranks Federer fourth (most probably regarding peak level) . But I don't agree with Ken.
Last edited:
abmk
Bionic Poster
then why/how can you say that that 2004-07 was a weak era if you don't care much and haven't watched much ?
how can you say djokovic/nadal have "much" higher peaks than federer did despite all evidence suggesting federer's peak was better ?
how can you say hewitt wouldn't be top 10 in other so called "stronger" eras ? have you watched him totally dismantle sampras in their USO 2001 final or bagel sampras in their lisbon 2000 final ? have you watch him own rafter with his returning & passing shots , same for henman ....to an even greater extent ?
he's 5-4 vs sampras, 3-1 vs rafter, 9-1 vs henman ( from memory ) ....
Last edited:
But young fan, You know that a lie must given intentionally?!?!?
abmk
Bionic Poster
get me one "expert" who ranks federer out of the top 10 of all time, just one ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
true, another reason is that he kept it simple with his groundstrokes ...
yep, agree, but those are tactical changes, not changes in skill ...
Rosewall at 31 has not lost a set against a noboby and would not have lost one if he met such a player.
abmk, I'm still living in a democracy with the right of free speech...
And I contradict. So simple it is.
abmk
Bionic Poster
how would you know ? rosewall at 31 was in the pros and only playing a select group of pros .... he didn't face lower ranked players or "nobodies"
you realize sampras at 31 lost to #145 ranked lucky loser bastl at wimbledon of all places ? not one, 3 sets at his favorite slam, wimbledon ?
nadal at 26 lost to #100 ranked rosol at wimbledon ?
define nobody,the ranking cut-off, I'll get you a list of sets or even matches lost by all other greats in the open era at reasonable ages - connors, borg, mac, wilander, lendl, becker, edberg, sampras, agassi, djokovic, nadal etc ...
I rank Federer No.4 (equal with Gonzalez) in my list of achievements...
abmk
Bionic Poster
contradict with what ??
you realise we're talking about actual matches that occurred in best years of nadal/djokovic ?
abmk
Bionic Poster
of course it is .......
just don't expect people to not belittle your ignorant posts ......its a democracy after all ........
how would it feel if someone said to you that Karlovic's backhand was as good as Rosewall's ... it is a democracy, isn't it ? :lol:
or wait, you might not even know who Karlovic is ..
I'll give another example
how would it feel if someone said to you that roddick's approach shots and volleys were as good as Rosewall's ... it is a democracy, isn't it ? :lol:
Last edited:
Similar threads
