So if Federer was a weak era champion

Saula

Rookie
Not saying he didn't deserve the FO in 2009 but lets be real here , if Soderling didn't take Nadal out do you honestly believe he would have won that FO ?
If we are talking about who did it first , well he did it in 2009 and Nadal did it in 2010 and Nadal is 5 years younger , it would have looked real bad for Roger if Nadal who is 5 years his junior got the career grand slam before him , if anything Nadal has shown more ,, mastery ,, considering he did it at a much younger age than Roger .
 
See nothing wrong with those. Delpo and Roddick were elite.
Roddick may have been elite that tournament, but we all know what he did.. and DelPo was caught out in his first ever slam SF and on fumes the last 2 sets... served 42% firsts in the 5th and was physically + mentally done after he should have won the first 3 sets.
 
That actually seems pretty good to me all things considered, certainly stronger than some of his ‘04 or ‘06-07 escapades
I dont get it...

Monfils in a slam QF, Söderling in a F (first ever), Karlovic in a QF, Haas in a SF, worn out Tsonga in a semi, and baby Murray for a slam...

That is definitely not "pretty good". The fact its better than 06-07 isnt saying much.
 

Kralingen

Legend
I dont get it...

Monfils in a slam QF, Söderling in a F (first ever), Karlovic in a QF, Haas in a SF, worn out Tsonga in a semi, and baby Murray for a slam...

That is definitely not "pretty good". The fact its better than 06-07 isnt saying much.
AO ‘10 wasn’t a tough draw at all. Fair enough. Still Davydenko coming off WTF win and a decently well playing Murray isn’t too easy.

I like to look at it as: who was the toughest opponent you faced and how did you do? FO ‘09 had an excellent and I mean excellent Del Potro performance so I think it’s fine. It’s not beating Nadal but the guy who beat Nadal (Soderling) was good for sets 2&3 anyways.

Wimby ‘09 I don’t care about Haas or Dr. Ivo bc Roddick played his heart out and served like a monster.. choked that 2nd set TB of course but Fed still saved 4 other SPs than just the miss. and his serving was impeccable throughout.

Its no ‘92 USO murderer’s row but he was still playing really well in all those. Do you really believe he just vultured these titles?
 
AO ‘10 wasn’t a tough draw at all. Fair enough. Still Davydenko coming off WTF win and a decently well playing Murray isn’t too easy.

I like to look at it as: who was the toughest opponent you faced and how did you do? FO ‘09 had an excellent and I mean excellent Del Potro performance so I think it’s fine. It’s not beating Nadal but the guy who beat Nadal (Soderling) was good for sets 2&3 anyways.

Wimby ‘09 I don’t care about Haas or Dr. Ivo bc Roddick played his heart out and served like a monster.. choked that 2nd set TB of course but Fed still saved 4 other SPs than just the miss. and his serving was impeccable throughout.

Its no ‘92 USO murderer’s row but he was still playing really well in all those. Do you really believe he just vultured these titles?
Söderling never seriously threatened and fell apart in the tiebreak.

You should care about Haas or Ivo though lol. A slam isnt just about playing 1 great player, and one who chokes at that...

Fed saved 3 other SP's than the miss, 2 by a good serve.

I don't think he "vultured" them, but its not by accident that he won those titles after Nadal in injured himself and was never the same that year. Nadal led the race comfortably at one point and had thoroughly taken over all surfaces, then the knee flared up. Meanwhile Djok declined pretty hard at slams and Murray wasn't there yet...

so you had new fresh faces in DelPo and Söd who were nice, but still not ready yet for a title, and would normally have been pickings around the QF stage with a full roster, so to speak.

And the less we say about Davydenko's rollercoaster drop-off in that match, the better.



*shank by Fed who seemingly did not even expect it to go over


shortly after he loses 13 straight games.
 
Please name the unseeded players of that quality in previous times...

just try.
2004 AO Safin, lol.
An anomaly, you say?
The players you mentioned first like Korda and Alcaraz will be seeded soon enough going up through the ranks so that was an anomaly too.
Mentioning relative mugs like Ivashka, Fucsovics and Kwoon (?!?) in the same breath is lulzworthy.
Like what did Fuccovick for example do, beat Dimidroll and Copeck? Plenty of lesser folks beat them.
 

Kralingen

Legend
Söderling never seriously threatened and fell apart in the tiebreak.

You should care about Haas or Ivo though lol. A slam isnt just about playing 1 great player, and one who chokes at that...

Fed saved 3 other SP's than the miss, 2 by a good serve.

I don't think he "vultured" them, but its not by accident that he won those titles after Nadal in injured himself and was never the same that year. Nadal led the race comfortably at one point and had thoroughly taken over all surfaces, then the knee flared up. Meanwhile Djok declined pretty hard at slams and Murray wasn't there yet...

so you had new fresh faces in DelPo and Söd who were nice, but still not ready yet for a title, and would normally have been pickings around the QF stage with a full roster, so to speak.

And the less we say about Davydenko's rollercoaster drop-off in that match, the better.



*shank by Fed who seemingly did not even expect it to go over


shortly after he loses 13 straight games.
FO ‘09: Yes Soderling was tired both mentally and physically. 5 setter with Gonzo and nerves clearly sapped him. But - Fed was balling and played probably the best clay match he could have. You could say he got tight vs Haas (and yeah, that one along with DelPo was also an escape) but it’s not like Fed was just rolling in serves and tossing moonballs for those guys. Haas and DelPo played aggressive clay tennis and it paid off in a big way but sustaining it, against the better aggressive clay player, is difficult. Fed saved the crucial points vs Haas and DelPo so yeah I’ll give him credit. Anyways where are the guys who can mix it up and play all court like that today? it’s not the strongest win but considering it’s Fed’s worst surface… I’m all in on calling it a good win.

AO 10: Davy’s serve wasn’t great so I’m not trying to say he was incredible. And he did choke that one point. But also look at what he was capable off the ground, taking the ball early off both wings and somewhat bullying Federer at times. He also turned it around in the 4th set and broke back twice - you could say they weren’t great service games from Fed but that ballstriking and aggression from Davy was excellent if not consistent.
Plus Fed’s level raised spectacularly for the SF and Final which is what matters to me. Murray was not much worse than he was in the ‘11 final imo. Fed’s use of angles and especially his BH were unbelievable in the ‘10 final (and a great exhibition of what a prime ish Fed on plexi could look like).


Wimby ‘09: Karlovic is still if nothing else a massive server who Fed broke 2x and had no issues with in the one TB they had by the way. and the aforementioned Haas fought admirably to hold serve but two rather incredible FHs sealed the set in both iirc. Been a while since I watched these though. And as for Roddick, don’t discount that performance. Power tennis and clutch serving time and time and time again.

The greats usually get there with a little luck anyways. Those were also probably 13-14th best Slam performances from Fed anyways.


End of the day I want to address the real point of your comment because you’re an intelligent guy:

“A slam isnt just about playing 1 great player, and one who chokes at that”

Honestly if we apply that criterion throughout history we’re left with a lot of difficult questions about how great the Big 3 actually are.. because with the cushy #1/2 seeding they get it’s rare that they’ve actually play 2 great (as in great playing, not just great names) players in one Slam in even half of their Slam wins. Not just Fed here, Djokodal as well. Even Pete isn’t immune from the curse of mug competition.

so what are your standards for strong slam competition? Who’s the strongest champion of them all? I don’t sense an agenda and I don’t really have one either - but if we want to start poking holes in the aforementioned Slam lineup then Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, even Borg to some extent have a lot to answer for imo.
 

Rosstour

Legend
Not saying he didn't deserve the FO in 2009 but lets be real here , if Soderling didn't take Nadal out do you honestly believe he would have won that FO ?
If we are talking about who did it first , well he did it in 2009 and Nadal did it in 2010 and Nadal is 5 years younger , it would have looked real bad for Roger if Nadal who is 5 years his junior got the career grand slam before him , if anything Nadal has shown more ,, mastery ,, considering he did it at a much younger age than Roger .
If Soderling could beat Rafa that year, I have to think the guy who made all four Slam finals would have had a shot.
 
2004 AO Safin, lol.
An anomaly, you say?
The players you mentioned first like Korda and Alcaraz will be seeded soon enough going up through the ranks so that was an anomaly too.
Mentioning relative mugs like Ivashka, Fucsovics and Kwoon (?!?) in the same breath is lulzworthy.
Like what did Fuccovick for example do, beat Dimidroll and Copeck? Plenty of lesser folks beat them.
These arent anomalies though.

Every slam we have 1-2 new kids on the block that are still unseeded.

Its not something uncommon.

They havent found their just rank yet, obviously.

But it doesnt matter.

On the whole, slam for slam, there have never been more impressive unseeded players than now.

And you know its true since you only resort to diminishing those mentioned, instead of actually offering a counter line-up/roster of unseeded players.

Kinda sad/weak to see you belittle Ivashka or Fucsovics. Especially the latter who's good for a top seed win at every 2nd slam nowadays... And Ivashka's progress has been stunning. Its often hard for people to acknowledge change. Its easy to keep the initial narrative of Ivashka, a solid player doing good for himself, rather than to acknowledge that he is one of the premier baseliners / power hitters now.
 

BeatlesFan

Bionic Poster
Not saying he didn't deserve the FO in 2009 but lets be real here , if Soderling didn't take Nadal out do you honestly believe he would have won that FO ?
Both premises are skewed beyond belief.

Nobody 'deserves' a slam trophy, if that was the criterion, then Andy Roddick would have won Wimbledon 2009 and there's about 30 other examples in the OE alone. The second part is also weak. Fed can only face the opponent in any final that reaches that final. Nadal lost to Soderling at 2009 RG, end of story. If he was the best player at the 2009 FO he would have won it. You can spin it any way you wish if it makes you feel better, it's what the Djokovic fans do about the 2020 USO final: "let's be real here, if Nole hadn't hit Karen in the throat, you honestly believe Thiem would have that won that USO?"
 

Saula

Rookie
Both premises are skewed beyond belief.

Nobody 'deserves' a slam trophy, if that was the criterion, then Andy Roddick would have won Wimbledon 2009 and there's about 30 other examples in the OE alone. The second part is also weak. Fed can only face the opponent in any final that reaches that final. Nadal lost to Soderling at 2009 RG, end of story. If he was the best player at the 2009 FO he would have won it. You can spin it any way you wish if it makes you feel better, it's what the Djokovic fans do about the 2020 USO final: "let's be real here, if Nole hadn't hit Karen in the throat, you honestly believe Thiem would have that won that USO?"
Dude he won it that is why i said he deserved it , i never said somebody doesn't deserve something that he didn't win . Roddick didn't deserve that Wimbledon because he didn't win it . When i wrote deserve i meant he won it fair and square and that is why he deserved to win it , no ifs or buts . I am not spinning it in any way i just said had he faced Nadal he likely would have lost , that is just realistic because unlike Federer , Soderling has extreme firepower that once in a blue moon can shine like it did against Nadal that day . Roger is my second favorite player but that is just realism , same way Haas was pretty much 1 point from beating Roger in 3 sets but he didn't . Federer won it 100 % fair and square but to say that Soderling hasn't done him a mountain of a favor by beating Nadal is untrue . Roger was never close to beating Nadal at the FO and i doubt it would have been any different that year had they met in the eventual final .
Novak is my favorite player but he deserved that DQ 100 % , he hit her in the throat , Karen or not rules are the rules , if Novak has anybody to blame for the DQ it is himself not the line judge . Honestly i don't know if Novak would have won it , he didn't play that amazing even up to that point , he totally flopped in that first set against PCB , should have won that set but didn't . Same way for Fed i am saying for Thiem he deserved that title 100 % but if Novak got to him would he have beaten him , maybe not , but he certainly would have had a better chance at it than Roger at FO against Nadal who he never even took to 5 sets there .
 

Red Rick

Bionic Poster
Why was he the first to win all four slams, showing complete mastery across all three surfaces and achieve a full career slam during the strong era? :unsure:

USO 2008
RG 2009
W 2009
AO 2010

Not really what you would expect from a weak era champion. ;)
Won literally 1 Slam in Djoko's prime bruh
 
These arent anomalies though.

Every slam we have 1-2 new kids on the block that are still unseeded.

Its not something uncommon.

They havent found their just rank yet, obviously.

But it doesnt matter.

On the whole, slam for slam, there have never been more impressive unseeded players than now.

And you know its true since you only resort to diminishing those mentioned, instead of actually offering a counter line-up/roster of unseeded players.

Kinda sad/weak to see you belittle Ivashka or Fucsovics. Especially the latter who's good for a top seed win at every 2nd slam nowadays... And Ivashka's progress has been stunning. Its often hard for people to acknowledge change. Its easy to keep the initial narrative of Ivashka, a solid player doing good for himself, rather than to acknowledge that he is one of the premier baseliners / power hitters now.
Only you can belittle past times as you wish because objective reasons, amirite. Wayne Arthurs was a bigger spanner in the works than either, etc.
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
Are we seriously touting Ivashka as an element that makes this a stronger era? He’s a good player (no bad player exists in those echelons), but he’s quite irrelevant when we’re comparing eras because the discussion should be limited to the top players. Even if Ivashka is better than some of your run of the mill unseeded players of the past (and I don’t believe he is), it will be by an insignificant amount.
 
FO ‘09: Yes Soderling was tired both mentally and physically. 5 setter with Gonzo and nerves clearly sapped him. But - Fed was balling and played probably the best clay match he could have. You could say he got tight vs Haas (and yeah, that one along with DelPo was also an escape) but it’s not like Fed was just rolling in serves and tossing moonballs for those guys. Haas and DelPo played aggressive clay tennis and it paid off in a big way but sustaining it, against the better aggressive clay player, is difficult. Fed saved the crucial points vs Haas and DelPo so yeah I’ll give him credit. Anyways where are the guys who can mix it up and play all court like that today? it’s not the strongest win but considering it’s Fed’s worst surface… I’m all in on calling it a good win.

AO 10: Davy’s serve wasn’t great so I’m not trying to say he was incredible. And he did choke that one point. But also look at what he was capable off the ground, taking the ball early off both wings and somewhat bullying Federer at times. He also turned it around in the 4th set and broke back twice - you could say they weren’t great service games from Fed but that ballstriking and aggression from Davy was excellent if not consistent.
Plus Fed’s level raised spectacularly for the SF and Final which is what matters to me. Murray was not much worse than he was in the ‘11 final imo. Fed’s use of angles and especially his BH were unbelievable in the ‘10 final (and a great exhibition of what a prime ish Fed on plexi could look like).


Wimby ‘09: Karlovic is still if nothing else a massive server who Fed broke 2x and had no issues with in the one TB they had by the way. and the aforementioned Haas fought admirably to hold serve but two rather incredible FHs sealed the set in both iirc. Been a while since I watched these though. And as for Roddick, don’t discount that performance. Power tennis and clutch serving time and time and time again.

The greats usually get there with a little luck anyways. Those were also probably 13-14th best Slam performances from Fed anyways.


End of the day I want to address the real point of your comment because you’re an intelligent guy:

“A slam isnt just about playing 1 great player, and one who chokes at that”

Honestly if we apply that criterion throughout history we’re left with a lot of difficult questions about how great the Big 3 actually are.. because with the cushy #1/2 seeding they get it’s rare that they’ve actually play 2 great (as in great playing, not just great names) players in one Slam in even half of their Slam wins. Not just Fed here, Djokodal as well. Even Pete isn’t immune from the curse of mug competition.

so what are your standards for strong slam competition? Who’s the strongest champion of them all? I don’t sense an agenda and I don’t really have one either - but if we want to start poking holes in the aforementioned Slam lineup then Nadal, Djokovic, Sampras, even Borg to some extent have a lot to answer for imo.
I think the fact that the QF and SF opponents were weak ('09 WB) is pretty undeniable and obviously a black spot for the slam's difficulty.

You aren't supposed to win slams by playing 1 tough opponent.

That's not something far fetched or anything. It's not rare to play great opponents in the QF and SF at all. It is however rare to play Karlovic and Haas in the QF and SF of a slam, respectively.

But I appreciate the analogies and thought that went into your post.
 
Are we seriously touting Ivashka as an element that makes this a stronger era? He’s a good player (no bad player exists in those echelons), but he’s quite irrelevant when we’re comparing eras because the discussion should be limited to the top players. Even if Ivashka is better than some of your run of the mill unseeded players of the past (and I don’t believe he is), it will be by an insignificant amount.
It's sad for me to still see brilliant individuals marginalized because of their name and lack of achievements.

Ivashka has done tremendously well for himself and is an occasional threat / bother to top players.

It's not like I built my case around him.

He's just another in a long line of unseeded players that have a quality no other era/line-up of unseeded players had.

And if you see Ivashka as a run-off-the-mill unseeded player, then you are truly simplistic.

Like I said, it's hard for people to say / believe something that is easy to reject at surface level.

There comes a point where things are only noticed by those who dig a little deeper, are willing to take on more complicated matters.

(PS: I wonder how many unseeded players would make WB/USO 4R/3R B2B, win a title inbetween destroying big names, and go 5-sets with Mr. QF Berrettini. Its not even like it was a surprise. Bookies expected him to be so good. He straight-setted Pospisil who just came off a win over Fognini. And he would have been favorite against Fognini, also. Straight-setted Thompson at WB aswell, who is pretty dangerous on grass and had just won over Ruud and Nishikori.)
 
Last edited:

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
It's sad for me to still see brilliant individuals marginalized because of their name and lack of achievements.
and also

I think the fact that the QF and SF opponents were weak ('09 WB) is pretty undeniable and obviously a black spot for the slam's difficulty.

You aren't supposed to win slams by playing 1 tough opponent.

That's not something far fetched or anything. It's not rare to play great opponents in the QF and SF at all. It is however rare to play Karlovic and Haas in the QF and SF of a slam, respectively.

But I appreciate the analogies and thought that went into your post.
All within two posts lol.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think the fact that the QF and SF opponents were weak ('09 WB) is pretty undeniable and obviously a black spot for the slam's difficulty.

You aren't supposed to win slams by playing 1 tough opponent.

That's not something far fetched or anything. It's not rare to play great opponents in the QF and SF at all. It is however rare to play Karlovic and Haas in the QF and SF of a slam, respectively.

But I appreciate the analogies and thought that went into your post.
Haas was hardly a weak opponent in Wim 09. Beat Djoko in the QF. He was playing well.
Karlovic was unbroken that grass season and beat 2 top players on the way to QF - Tsonga and Verdasco. Fed broke him clean in 2 return games in the 1st 2 sets.
Fed also beat Soderling in 4R - hardly a weak opponent.
 
Last edited:

Adam Copeland

Professional
If Soderling could beat Rafa that year, I have to think the guy who made all four Slam finals would have had a shot.
A guy who got bageled in the previous year and also cried at the HC slam final before that FO due to defeat would have had 0 chances vs Nadal in a french open final of 2009 because if Nadal is there in the final then it means he is in very good nick and will win.

Accept it, Federer owes his French Open and career slam to Soderling!

Brand of Tennis which Federer played is from the 90s with a bit more baselining prowess, but not enough to take out a superior athlete like Rafael Nadal on his fav court in the final.

Soderling did what he could because he is Soderling and also was not in the final !
 

Rosstour

Legend
A guy who got bageled in the previous year and also cried at the HC slam final before that FO due to defeat would have had 0 chances vs Nadal in a french open final of 2009 because if Nadal is there in the final then it means he is in very good nick and will win.

Accept it, Federer owes his French Open and career slam to Soderling!

Brand of Tennis which Federer played is from the 90s with a bit more baselining prowess, but not enough to take out a superior athlete like Rafael Nadal on his fav court in the final.

Soderling did what he could because he is Soderling and also was not in the final !
That's why I said he would have had a shot, and not "he would have won"
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I think the fact that the QF and SF opponents were weak ('09 WB) is pretty undeniable and obviously a black spot for the slam's difficulty.

You aren't supposed to win slams by playing 1 tough opponent.

That's not something far fetched or anything. It's not rare to play great opponents in the QF and SF at all. It is however rare to play Karlovic and Haas in the QF and SF of a slam, respectively.

But I appreciate the analogies and thought that went into your post.
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Can't believe you wrote this.

Many slams were won by facing just 1 tough opponent.
 
:laughing: :laughing: :laughing: Can't believe you wrote this.

Many slams were won by facing just 1 tough opponent.
Its one thing to face 1 tough opponent, its another to face Karlovic and Haas in QF-SF.

And many or not, it does not make it less weak.

Its not the norm.

Haas was hardly a weak opponent in Wim 09. Beat Djoko in the QF. He was playing well.
Karlovic was unbroken that grass season and beat 2 top players on the way to QF - Tsonga and Verdasco. Fed broke him clean in 2 return games in the 1st 2 sets.
Fed also beat Soderling in 4R - hardly a weak opponent.
Djokovic was off kilter around that time though.. he spoke of anxiety in the PC.

Karlovic was in good form sure, but it was still his first QF and he was way in over his head.

Söd was indeed a strong 4R opponent.

Haas never seriously threatened, and Fed did not have to be great at all to win.

and also



All within two posts lol.
Congrats, you succeeded being snarky. You failed at making sense though.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Its one thing to face 1 tough opponent, its another to face Karlovic and Haas in QF-SF.

And many or not, it does not make it less weak.

Its not the norm.
Except it happens way more often than you think. How many tough opponents did Djokovic face to win 2015 Wimb, 2015 USO, 2011 Wimb, etc?

And what's wrong with facing Haas in a slam semi?
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
Its one thing to face 1 tough opponent, its another to face Karlovic and Haas in QF-SF.

And many or not, it does not make it less weak.

Its not the norm.



Djokovic was off kilter around that time though.. he spoke of anxiety in the PC.

Karlovic was in good form sure, but it was still his first QF and he was way in over his head.

Söd was indeed a strong 4R opponent.

Haas never seriously threatened, and Fed did not have to be great at all to win.



Congrats, you succeeded being snarky. You failed at making sense though.
You made a hypocritical post and contradicted yourself.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Djokovic was off kilter around that time though.. he spoke of anxiety in the PC.
Djoko was not in great form for sure, but no pushover either

Karlovic was in good form sure, but it was still his first QF and he was way in over his head.
no, he wasn't. Karlovic played/served as usual. Fed was just too good in the 2 return games that he broke. And obviously held his own on serve.

Haas never seriously threatened, and Fed did not have to be great at all to win.
yeah, he did. That was Fed's best match at Wimbledon post 2006.

In the end, Haas the way he was playing was a deserving/worthy SFist at Wimbledon, moderately strong.
Karlovic was moderately strong for QF opponent
Soderling was strong for 4R opponent
Roddick in the final was strong.

This draw was a strong one overall at Wimbledon and blows away almost every draw from 2015-current (weakest period in open era).
 

mr tonyz

Professional
As many others have said: Nadal being out. It's super simple.
None of you guys seem to understand the importance of Fred consistently putting himself in positions to win that French Open during the previous 4 editions from 05-08 ...

Fred as an opportunist took his one opening which takes immense mental fortitude. Losing to Soderling in which Fred had something like a 16-0 record against back then?? vs taking on Rafa where he'd be expected to be steamrolled yet again?

It was really the first time Fred was the clear favourite in a French Open final & only time he ever was ...

Reverse the 2015 USO Semi-Finals & put Stanimal in Djoker's half of the draw & an injured Cilic vs Fred, well who knows. These things go both ways & generally balance themselves out.

All in all , Fred was waiting in the final & Rafa wasn't. Continue to blame Fred all you want, but you should blame Rafa for not making the final @ his pet slam.

For a supposed Weak-Era Chump Fred went through DjokerDal 7/20 = 7 slams which is quite good all things considered ...
 

Acegame

Rookie
It was a weak era from 2002 till the time Djokovic, Nadal and Murray came up. Sampras and Agassi were on their decline and players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Davidenko, Gonzales, Ferrero, Coria and Nalbandian were top of the ranks.Those players never came close to Federer and only won a few slams. As soon as Nadal and Djokovic came they were nowhere to be seen which is telling.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
It was a weak era from 2002 till the time Djokovic, Nadal and Murray came up. Sampras and Agassi were on their decline and players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Davidenko, Gonzales, Ferrero, Coria and Nalbandian were top of the ranks.Those players never came close to Federer and only won a few slams. As soon as Nadal and Djokovic came they were nowhere to be seen which is telling.
No, they had health issues that shortened their careers. Little to do with Djokodal.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
It was a weak era from 2002 till the time Djokovic, Nadal and Murray came up. Sampras and Agassi were on their decline and players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Davidenko, Gonzales, Ferrero, Coria and Nalbandian were top of the ranks.Those players never came close to Federer and only won a few slams. As soon as Nadal and Djokovic came they were nowhere to be seen which is telling.
that's funny because Roddick beat Djoko like a drum in winning like 9 sets in a row in 09-10 and leads their h2h.
ALso beat Nadal in Dubai 08 and Miami 10 (2 of Nadal's best years)
Safin crushed Djoko in Wim 08.
davy lead nadal on HC 6-1

they had injuries that curtailed their career. had nothing to do with Nadal, Djokovic.
 

Acegame

Rookie
I think only Nalbandian, Safin and Coria suffered from injuries that shortened their careers a bit, but not even by much.
 
It was a weak era from 2002 till the time Djokovic, Nadal and Murray came up. Sampras and Agassi were on their decline and players like Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Davidenko, Gonzales, Ferrero, Coria and Nalbandian were top of the ranks.Those players never came close to Federer and only won a few slams. As soon as Nadal and Djokovic came they were nowhere to be seen which is telling.
Players don't go from top 5 to barely top 20 (or worse) because of strong era, come on lol. Lack of durability was a problem with NewBalls (Fed gen), that's true. Many of them suffered physical decline early as a result of injuries, but many of them surged to the top early too, and they actually don't do too bad in this regard compared to the following gens (other than Djokodal obviously). Let's see the number of weeks of in the top 10 for various 1980-95-born players:

Murray - 494
Roddick - 440
Berdych - 369
Ferrer - 358
del Potro - 300
Hewitt - 277
Davydenko - 268
Wawrinka - 267
Tsonga - 260
Thiem - 260
Nalbandian - 232
Nishikori - 212
Safin - 202
Cilic - 191
Ferrero - 175
Raonic - 151
Gasquet - 146
Coria - 145
Blake - 131
Söderling - 108
Verdasco - 104

Ferrer is in fact a player of Federer's generation who peaked late (although he did have a brief peak under Federer spending a year in top 6 in 07-08).
 

Acegame

Rookie
So you guys agree that the era was weak then since apparently everyone was injured all the time xD
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
So you guys agree that the area was weak then since apparently everyone was injured all the time xD
incorrect. The injuries majorly affected from 2006 onwards (esp. Hewitt, Safin, Agassi). 2004-05 were pretty good years. 2006 a relatively weak year. 2007 again pretty good with Nadal getting better, rise of Djokovic.
 
You made a hypocritical post and contradicted yourself.
I alluded to the fact that many people write players off based on name, never fully understanding their full value...

we know of Karlovic's and Haas's full value. They're not "misunderstood", if you will.

It does not mean they were strong QF / SF opponents.

Capiche?
 
Djoko was not in great form for sure, but no pushover either



no, he wasn't. Karlovic played/served as usual. Fed was just too good in the 2 return games that he broke. And obviously held his own on serve.



yeah, he did. That was Fed's best match at Wimbledon post 2006.

In the end, Haas the way he was playing was a deserving/worthy SFist at Wimbledon, moderately strong.
Karlovic was moderately strong for QF opponent
Soderling was strong for 4R opponent
Roddick in the final was strong.

This draw was a strong one overall at Wimbledon and blows away almost every draw from 2015-current (weakest period in open era).
Roddick was a "good" finals opponent that let it all come to waste by gifting 1 set... so that kind of renders that thing useless.

Söd was strong. Even Kohli was a strong R3'er for the way he played...

but Ivo was in way over his head, and as nice and solid as Haas was, nothing about '09 Haas seriously suggests slam winning material....

and if you play someone in the semifinal, you should be playing someone that could be expected to win a Grand Slam.

Tommy Haas was not. And I was a big fan at the time, but winning Wimbledon would have been a huge success story. And that usually tells you he wasn't up to it, as shown.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
I alluded to the fact that many people write players off based on name, never fully understanding their full value...

we know of Karlovic's and Haas's full value. They're not "misunderstood", if you will.

It does not mean they were strong QF / SF opponents.

Capiche?
loool you just defined your own hypocrisy
 

Third Serve

G.O.A.T.
and if you play someone in the semifinal, you should be playing someone that could be expected to win a Grand Slam.
This isn’t actually the case all that often. Have a look at the winner’s SF opponents at Wimbledon for the last 20 editions and tell me, after considering the levels of these players at the times of the matches, if you think these are players you’d expect to win the Slam or Slams in general.

2000: Voltchkov (Q)
2001: Henman
2002: Henman
2003: Roddick
2004: Grosjean
2005: Hewitt
2006: Bjorkman
2007: Gasquet
2008: Schuttler
2009: Haas
2010: Murray
2011: Tsonga
2012: Djokovic
2013: Janowicz
2014: Dimitrov
2015: Gasquet
2016: Berdych
2017: Berdych
2018: Nadal
2019: Bautista Agut
2021: Shapovalov

I can only count about 3-5 of the types of players you seem to be describing. Truth be told, SF opponents aren’t actually that good on average, or at least not at Wimbledon for the last twenty years. Haas isn’t really an outlier here. It’s not to say that he was some amazing SFist, but he’s just part of a trend that not only encompasses 2009 Wimbledon but also most others.
 
You can only defeat who you are presented with on the other side of the court!

Roger is great ...but his inability to defeat Rafa at Roland Garros will always be a huge hole in his CV!

Especially when you consider ...

Novak has defeated Rafa at RG
Rafa has defeated Roger at Wimbledon.
Novak has defeated Roger at Wimbledon.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Roddick was a "good" finals opponent that let it all come to waste by gifting 1 set... so that kind of renders that thing useless.

Söd was strong. Even Kohli was a strong R3'er for the way he played...

but Ivo was in way over his head, and as nice and solid as Haas was, nothing about '09 Haas seriously suggests slam winning material....

and if you play someone in the semifinal, you should be playing someone that could be expected to win a Grand Slam.

Tommy Haas was not. And I was a big fan at the time, but winning Wimbledon would have been a huge success story. And that usually tells you he wasn't up to it, as shown.
Roddick didn't gift sh*t. He played great to go up 6-2 in the TB in the first place. One missed volley is not a gift. Federer saved the the other 3 SPs.
Haas was playing well enough to win Wim 09. Just that there were others better.
Karlovic was unbroken that grass season and played well in the QF.
 
Top