Tennis has not evolved a great deal since 2000

[Deleted member 307496]

I see people regularly arguing that tennis, as a game, has evolved a great deal since 2000. I don't subscribe to this theory. The surfaces, of course have changed significantly, but the players themselves have not had enough time to simply "evolve to another level".

The standard set by Federer in 2004 is still the standard today. In my honest opinion, the top 20 players today would be top 20 players and nothing more from 2000-2005. The top 10 would be about where they are at now, Wawrinka may perhaps have a shot at the US Open but that's unlikely. This is if we transport the tour back to the turn of the century.

What is alarming is the fact that several top players are dropping off now, much like in 2006, but that nobody is arguing against the growing weakness of the tour -- instead, it must be getting stronger. This makes little sense to me when Nadal and Federer have faded significantly and Djokovic still struggles to beat them. And meanwhile, fringe top 70 or 80 players are now all of a sudden finding their form. I don't buy this for a second -- it is only due to the slow weakening of the tour that these players (Smyczek, Estrella Burgos, Maurer, ect) are progressing so far up the rankings.

So, in conclusion, the players of today aren't 10 times better than the players of 15 years ago, nor is the competition really that much "stronger". All in my honest opinion of course.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

It's evolved slightly. Generally, players seem to move slightly better. Also, technology has continued to slowly aid the tennis players. That doesn't mean the top 20 of today is more talented than the top 20 from 2000.

A Sampras coming up today would be viciously good IMO and would tailor his game a bit more for the changed tennis landscape of today, and his serve would be even better with the better rackets and strings.

For the moment, I'd say the tour is getting a bit weaker, because it seems most of the big four are in definitive decline but at the same time a lot of players from younger generations are yet to hit their stride, which opens up space for peers of the Federer and Djokovic generation to get a look in. Not taking anything away from them.. just saying that they have more room to operate now and there's slightly more opportunity at the moment for non Big Four players to win a Slam.

 

[Russeljones]

I think it's a very popular myth propagated mostly by people who became enamoured with the game during or after Federer's peak dominance.

 

[Bukmeikara]

Lower ranked players have now better access to coaches, physious and medical suplaiments which gives them the oppurtunity to reach higher levels. For example if you are a smart tennis player ranked around number 80, 30 years ago you didnt had the oppurtunity watching manny matches of someone like Del Potro, Berdych or even Nadal and Federer, but present day on You tube you can see even their practice sessions.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It's evolved slightly. Generally, players seem to move slightly better. Also, technology has continued to slowly aid the tennis players. That doesn't mean the top 20 of today is more talented than the top 20 from 2000.

A Sampras coming up today would be viciously good IMO and would tailor his game a bit more for the changed tennis landscape of today, and his serve would be even better with the better rackets and strings.

For the moment, I'd say the tour is getting a bit weaker, because it seems most of the big four are in definitive decline but at the same time a lot of players from younger generations are yet to hit their stride, which opens up space for peers of the Federer and Djokovic generation to get a look in. Not taking anything away from them.. just saying that they have more room to operate now and there's slightly more opportunity at the moment for non Big Four players to win a Slam.

I don't know about movement. Some regular top 20 players from 10 or more years back had scary movement at their best. In terms of strings and technology, I can agree with that.. But it is not like players were using full gut strings from 2000-2005.

 

[Bukmeikara]

It's evolved slightly. Generally, players seem to move slightly better. Also, technology has continued to slowly aid the tennis players. That doesn't mean the top 20 of today is more talented than the top 20 from 2000.

A Sampras coming up today would be viciously good IMO and would tailor his game a bit more for the changed tennis landscape of today, and his serve would be even better with the better rackets and strings.

For the moment, I'd say the tour is getting a bit weaker, because it seems most of the big four are in definitive decline but at the same time a lot of players from younger generations are yet to hit their stride, which opens up space for peers of the Federer and Djokovic generation to get a look in. Not taking anything away from them.. just saying that they have more room to operate now and there's slightly more opportunity at the moment for non Big Four players to win a Slam.

Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have access to the very best supliements that the world can offer. They have minni teams of people which take care of them after every match so that they can preserve energy. This is the main reason why they are able to remain so dominant even at this point.

 

[Nathaniel_Near]

I don't know about movement. Some regular top 20 players from 10 or more years back had scary movement at their best. In terms of strings and technology, I can agree with that.. But it is not like players were using full gut strings from 2000-2005.

Yep, but the transition wasn't yet complete or ideally calibrated.

On average the movement for at least the very top guys is generally superior. Now that might just be a cyclical thing and not part of some general evolutionary trend of improved movement and defence. Also, these attributes can shine more clearly because of the slowing conditions and the technology. I mean, if we look at the generations after Federer's (Federer+Hewitt) and Nadal's (Kinda Fed's gen. in a weird way but for arguments sake: Nadal, Djokovic and Murray), it would seem that they don't have players who move as well overall. What do we have from Dimitrov's generation.. Nishikori? I guess we'll wait and see on the next lot but Coric and Kokkinakis do look very athletic and already move very well.

Federer himself stated a few times in recent years that players move better than they used to and defend better. I can't recall if he also said that players used to attack better.

 

[Russeljones]

Djokovic, Nadal and Federer have access to the very best supliements that the world can offer. They have minni teams of people which take care of them after every match so that they can preserve energy. This is the main reason why they are able to remain so dominant even at this point.

It's pointless to appeal to the average poster here to look outside the microcosm that the Big 4 operate in. You have to understand that most here assume the general standard of tennis should conform to that shown during select moments of the quartet's careers. Anything that falls short of that is labeled choking, disappointing, clowning, you name it.

 

[okdude1992]

I see people regularly arguing that tennis, as a game, has evolved a great deal since 2000. I don't subscribe to this theory. The surfaces, of course have changed significantly, but the players themselves have not had enough time to simply "evolve to another level".

The standard set by Federer in 2004 is still the standard today. In my honest opinion, the top 20 players today would be top 20 players and nothing more from 2000-2005. The top 10 would be about where they are at now, Wawrinka may perhaps have a shot at the US Open but that's unlikely. This is if we transport the tour back to the turn of the century.

What is alarming is the fact that several top players are dropping off now, much like in 2006, but that nobody is arguing against the growing weakness of the tour -- instead, it must be getting stronger. This makes little sense to me when Nadal and Federer have faded significantly and Djokovic still struggles to beat them. And meanwhile, fringe top 70 or 80 players are now all of a sudden finding their form. I don't buy this for a second -- it is only due to the slow weakening of the tour that these players (Smyczek, Estrella Burgos, Maurer, ect) are progressing so far up the rankings.

So, in conclusion, the players of today aren't 10 times better than the players of 15 years ago, nor is the competition really that much "stronger". All in my honest opinion of course.

I agree. The fact that Roger Federer is STILL #2 in the world and the biggest threat to Djokovic is telling. Your point about all these journeyman suddenly peaking is relevant too. Bottom line is that the "lost generation" has failed to take over their placeholders from the previous generation. I'd say a part of this is due to slowed surfaces, and anther part is simply lack of talent in this current group as compared with the previous (Djokovic, Murray, Delpo, even Nadal who's a bit older)

 

[above bored]

I see people regularly arguing that tennis, as a game, has evolved a great deal since 2000. I don't subscribe to this theory. The surfaces, of course have changed significantly, but the players themselves have not had enough time to simply "evolve to another level".

The standard set by Federer in 2004 is still the standard today. In my honest opinion, the top 20 players today would be top 20 players and nothing more from 2000-2005. The top 10 would be about where they are at now, Wawrinka may perhaps have a shot at the US Open but that's unlikely. This is if we transport the tour back to the turn of the century.

What is alarming is the fact that several top players are dropping off now, much like in 2006, but that nobody is arguing against the growing weakness of the tour -- instead, it must be getting stronger. This makes little sense to me when Nadal and Federer have faded significantly and Djokovic still struggles to beat them. And meanwhile, fringe top 70 or 80 players are now all of a sudden finding their form. I don't buy this for a second -- it is only due to the slow weakening of the tour that these players (Smyczek, Estrella Burgos, Maurer, ect) are progressing so far up the rankings.

So, in conclusion, the players of today aren't 10 times better than the players of 15 years ago, nor is the competition really that much "stronger". All in my honest opinion of course.

Of course you're right. There has not been much of a shift. Players like Feliciano Lopez and Wawrinka are doing better than ever now, but were journeymen during their prime years. In his 30s, Robredo has done better at the Majors in the past couple of years than he ever did in his prime. We have not seen anything that can be described as progress. If anything, overall standards appear to have dropped. A lot of the players in their 30s can comfortably hold their own when fit, despite being quite close to retirement age. All the top players from back then have already retired, with the exception of Federer and Hewitt, who is literally on his last legs.

As you say, Federer set the standard back in 2004, which has still not been matched.

 

[uliks]

I agree. The fact that Roger Federer is STILL #2 in the world and the biggest threat to Djokovic is telling. Your point about all these journeyman suddenly peaking is relevant too. Bottom line is that the "lost generation" has failed to take over their placeholders from the previous generation. I'd say a part of this is due to slowed surfaces, and anther part is simply lack of talent in this current group as compared with the previous (Djokovic, Murray, Delpo, even Nadal who's a bit older)

Federer himself believes that he didn't decline that much from his peak years. Au contraire...

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2013-12-13/14304.php

“I always believe that I have improved over the last 10 years, you know, that I’ve not gone backwards, and I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago, so I always feel as I move forward I am a more complete player, a better player,” Federer said.

 

[above bored]

Federer himself believes that he didn't decline that much from his peak years. Au contraire...

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2013-12-13/14304.php

Federer always tries to be positive, so he's never going to publicly admit to negative aspects of his game, but make no mistake, he is a worse player than he was in his heyday and at his physical peak. Same has happened and will continue to happen to all the other greats, including the current No.1, Djokovic. This is not only true in tennis, but all sport. Decline is inevitable and unavoidable despite our best efforts to prevent it.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Always makes me laugh when posters like Sabratha ridicule Nole for still losing to Fedal now. Two of the greatest players ever will always remain a tough challenge for any player, even in a declined state because they're simply that good in the first place so what's so strange about losing to them even if you're the best in the world? Like Bette Davis said in 'Baby Jane', "you never lose your talent".

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Federer himself believes that he didn't decline that much from his peak years. Au contraire...

"I’ve been able to win (the Open) 10 years ago"

God I hate it when people call the US Open "The Open".

It isn't called that.

Also aren't they forgetting that the Australian Open and the French Open are just as open?

Murica-centrism at its finest.

THIS is The Open:

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Always makes me laugh when posters like Sabratha ridicule Nole for still losing to Fedal now. Two of the greatest players ever will always remain a tough challenge for any player, even in a declined state because they're simply that good in the first place so what's so strange about losing to them even if you're the best in the world? Like Bette Davis said in 'Baby Jane', "you never lose your talent".

Agree.

Federer has declined severely, but even in that state he's still excellent. :lol:

He remains worthy opposition for Novak on faster courts, and in those conditions is far from weak competition.

33yo Fed = normal mortal ATG in his late prime.

 

[D.Nalby12]

Tennis: 10 years ago.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=B-TZeGkEQWc

Tennis Nowadays:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_b4IRgb4NVg

It has devolved actually.

 

[JanowiczJ]

Ok guys, here's a translation:

Hi people, I'm Federer fanboy. Let me show why when Federer was in his Prime tennis was better. Then I'll say today's players are weak - even if I have downgrade Fed to do this. Then I'll talk how Nole is bad because he's struggling with a 33yo.

Then I'll Finnish my post by disproving a claim that no one makes (today's players being 10 times better) so it'll look I've responded to such absurd claims and in comparison it'll make my post look good.

 

[Anaconda]

As you say, Federer set the standard back in 2004, which has still not been matched.

Djokovic 2011 surpasses this. Federer had to play a tired Safin for AO, lost to past prime Kuerten, lucked out with the weather at the Wimbledon final, and got his whipping boy Hewitt at the US Open. His 2005 level was better, although he didn't win 3/4 slams, I don't know why people think Federer's 2004 was better than 2005.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Ok guys, here's a translation:

Hi people, I'm Federer fanboy. Let me show why when Federer was in his Prime tennis was better. Then I'll say today's players are weak - even if I have downgrade Fed to do this. Then I'll talk how Nole is bad because he's struggling with a 33yo.

Then I'll Finnish my post by disproving a claim that no one makes (today's players being 10 times better) so it'll look I've responded to such absurd claims and in comparison it'll make my post look good.

The "man" (or should I say child) of the hour has arrived to add more of his tripe to this topic.

I am simply noting things that have been argued on this forum -- and by presenting a more valid claim in my original post. Most people agree with what I'm saying, and you, and only you seem to believe that said players would excel in a different era. Which is pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Always makes me laugh when posters like Sabratha ridicule Nole for still losing to Fedal now. Two of the greatest players ever will always remain a tough challenge for any player, even in a declined state because they're simply that good in the first place so what's so strange about losing to them even if you're the best in the world? Like Bette Davis said in 'Baby Jane', "you never lose your talent".

The tour isn't just Federer and Nadal. The rest of the tour outside them and Murray is horrid as of late. Even Nadal and Federer have been waning.

 

[NatF]

Federer himself believes that he didn't decline that much from his peak years. Au contraire...

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2013-12-13/14304.php

Sampras said the same thing in 2002 :lol:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Yep, but the transition wasn't yet complete or ideally calibrated.

On average the movement for at least the very top guys is generally superior. Now that might just be a cyclical thing and not part of some general evolutionary trend of improved movement and defence. Also, these attributes can shine more clearly because of the slowing conditions and the technology. I mean, if we look at the generations after Federer's (Federer+Hewitt) and Nadal's (Kinda Fed's gen. in a weird way but for arguments sake: Nadal, Djokovic and Murray), it would seem that they don't have players who move as well overall. What do we have from Dimitrov's generation.. Nishikori? I guess we'll wait and see on the next lot but Coric and Kokkinakis do look very athletic and already move very well.

Federer himself stated a few times in recent years that players move better than they used to and defend better. I can't recall if he also said that players used to attack better.

I can agree with this.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Djokovic 2011 surpasses this. Federer had to play a tired Safin for AO, lost to past prime Kuerten, lucked out with the weather at the Wimbledon final, and got his whipping boy Hewitt at the US Open. His 2005 level was better, although he didn't win 3/4 slams, I don't know why people think Federer's 2004 was better than 2005.

Agreed, Djokovic's 2011 season > Federer's 2004 season, but it's close, Fed got the WTF in 2004 too.

Federer's best match ever was the USO 2004 Final IMO, but otherwise, his 2005-2006 level was better.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Djokovic 2011 surpasses this. Federer had to play a tired Safin for AO, lost to past prime Kuerten, lucked out with the weather at the Wimbledon final, and got his whipping boy Hewitt at the US Open. His 2005 level was better, although he didn't win 3/4 slams, I don't know why people think Federer's 2004 was better than 2005.

I disagree.. At least at slam level.

Wasn't Djokovic losing to Seppi at Roland Garros before he turned it around?

 

[uliks]

I disagree.. At least at slam level.

Wasn't Djokovic losing to Seppi at Roland Garros before he turned it around?

It was 2012 RG.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

It was 2012 RG.

OK, then I take back what I said. Novak's 2011 is just as impressive as Roger's 2004.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The tour isn't just Federer and Nadal. The rest of the tour outside them and Murray is horrid as of late. Even Nadal and Federer have been waning.

But you didn't mention the rest of the tour, you implied it was embarrassing that Nole still loses to Fedal even now.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic 2011 surpasses this. Federer had to play a tired Safin for AO, lost to past prime Kuerten, lucked out with the weather at the Wimbledon final, and got his whipping boy Hewitt at the US Open. His 2005 level was better, although he didn't win 3/4 slams, I don't know why people think Federer's 2004 was better than 2005.

His 2004 was very good. Djokovic's 2011 might have been better but Federer also has things going for him like 18-0 against top 10 players, in other words being undefeated against the 10 best players in the world and winning the WTF undefeated.

What made his 2004 amazing IMO is that he shut all of his generational peers.

His 2006 had insane consistency that has been unamtched ever since. Not even Djokovic in his great 2011 year reached 16 finals in 17 tournaments he entered in.

His 2005 level might have been better than his 2004 one, but 2004 still remains one of the best seasons of all time.

My favorite are 2004 and 2007. Shut down all his generational peers in 2004 and shurt down his younger rivals in 2007.

 

[Cortana]

I think if Djokovic from 2011/2015 and Federer from 2004-2007 would play in the early 90s, there wouldn't be any competition for them.

Both players set the bar higher than it was ever before.

 

[Anaconda]

I disagree.. At least at slam level.

Wasn't Djokovic losing to Seppi at Roland Garros before he turned it around?

Which means what? Djokovic doesn't lose 4-4-4 to players with busted hips. Watch Kuerten v Federer at FO 2004. Nalbandian was beating Federer at FO before he had to retire.


Federer played, like four tough opponents in 2004. Out of the lot of them, Hewitt is an easy matchup, Safin was dead in the final of AO, got lucky against Roddick at W04 with the rain delay and Agassi made it tough in US Open. The only thing you can say is that it took, at that time, the most accomplished FO player to beat Federer at the FO.



Djokovic, in 2011, simply played better than everyone at AO, W and US Open. No delays, tired opponents or easy matchups in finals. He was consistently either giving Federer, Nadal or Murray beatdowns or beating them in tough, physical matches (aside from FO).

 

[moonballs]

Djokovic's 2011 was greatly aided by the unique psycholofy of Nadal. After Djokovic beat Nadal on IW and extended the result to clay masters, the doubt in Nadal's mind when he played Djokovic could not be erased until the next clay season.

 

[Djokovic2011]

^^^You're wasting your time when it comes to saying anything complimentary about Djokovic Anaconda. Sabratha doesn't want to hear it.

 

[moonballs]

The "man" (or should I say child) of the hour has arrived to add more of his tripe to this topic.

I am simply noting things that have been argued on this forum -- and by presenting a more valid claim in my original post. Most people agree with what I'm saying, and you, and only you seem to believe that said players would excel in a different era. Which is pretty darn stupid if you ask me.

No, there is a more stupid post saying Fed is as good now as his peak with Federer's self affirmation as proof.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Which means what? Djokovic doesn't lose 4-4-4 to players with busted hips. Watch Kuerten v Federer at FO 2004. Nalbandian was beating Federer at FO before he had to retire.


Federer played, like four tough opponents in 2004. Out of the lot of them, Hewitt is an easy matchup, Safin was dead in the final of AO, got lucky against Roddick at W04 with the rain delay and Agassi made it tough in US Open. The only thing you can say is that it took, at that time, the most accomplished FO player to beat Federer at the FO.



Djokovic, in 2011, simply played better than everyone at AO, W and US Open. No delays, tired opponents or easy matchups in finals. He was consistently either giving Federer, Nadal or Murray beatdowns or beating them in tough, physical matches (aside from FO).

Complimenting/praising Djokovic is fine and deserved, and Djokovic had a better 2011 season than Fed's 2004 anyway in my view, but much of this poast comes across as detracting from Fed too much to be credible really.

Firstly, criticizing Fed's competition is completely bunk.
He was so much better that he didn't give them a look in.
The matches are available to watch, his opponents were capable of some serious tennis, their achievements be damned.

They didn't achieve because Federer wasn't having any of it, period.
Sadly, some can't seem to deal with this fact.

His competition was not in any way weak, it's really laughable how folks just look at the fact that they didn't win many slams and from that just say "oh, they were weak transitional players, a good match-up etc.".

Also what are you on about with Hewitt being a favourable match-up for Federer?
Uh, no.
That would be Roddick.

I understand that folks may just be attacking Federer in retaliation for his fans attacking Novak, but flinging p00p at Federer just makes folks look jealous and unintelligent.
I'm sorry, but when someone has comparatively achieved as much as Federer, attacking him absolutely reeks of jealousy and resentfulness, it really does.

He has seventeen slams, with every single one of them being worth as much as those of Djokovic, Nadal, or any other player, and some folks just need to put that in their pipe and smoke it.

Same about Djokovic having more #1 weeks than Nadal.
Folks need to just deal with it.

 

[Russeljones]

Which means what? Djokovic doesn't lose 4-4-4 to players with busted hips. Watch Kuerten v Federer at FO 2004. Nalbandian was beating Federer at FO before he had to retire.


Federer played, like four tough opponents in 2004. Out of the lot of them, Hewitt is an easy matchup, Safin was dead in the final of AO, got lucky against Roddick at W04 with the rain delay and Agassi made it tough in US Open. The only thing you can say is that it took, at that time, the most accomplished FO player to beat Federer at the FO.



Djokovic, in 2011, simply played better than everyone at AO, W and US Open. No delays, tired opponents or easy matchups in finals. He was consistently either giving Federer, Nadal or Murray beatdowns or beating them in tough, physical matches (aside from FO).

Classy as always. Anaconda the great revisionist.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Classy as always. Anaconda the great revisionist.

Good word for it.

Like anyone was actually spewing any of that nonsense at the time.

 

[mike danny]

Which means what? Djokovic doesn't lose 4-4-4 to players with busted hips. Watch Kuerten v Federer at FO 2004. Nalbandian was beating Federer at FO before he had to retire.


Federer played, like four tough opponents in 2004. Out of the lot of them, Hewitt is an easy matchup, Safin was dead in the final of AO, got lucky against Roddick at W04 with the rain delay and Agassi made it tough in US Open. The only thing you can say is that it took, at that time, the most accomplished FO player to beat Federer at the FO.



Djokovic, in 2011, simply played better than everyone at AO, W and US Open. No delays, tired opponents or easy matchups in finals. He was consistently either giving Federer, Nadal or Murray beatdowns or beating them in tough, physical matches (aside from FO).

There is no guarantee Safin would have beaten Fed in the 2004 AO final anyway.

Safin was playing better in 2005 and he barely got the job done.

Remember Safin isn't Federer. He lost to Johansson in a slam final so there is no guarantee he would have beaten Federer.

 

[tennisaddict]

Fitness and movement have improved.

Tennis around 2003-05 was much improved over year 2000, but I think it is pretty much at the same level since then.

 

[Magnetite]

The game HAS evolved. There is more homogeneity to the game (not a good thing, but still evolution), and string technology has changed the way the majority of players hit the ball.

I'm not sure what you expect. In most sports, players from the 1990's and early 2000's could compete with players today. Most sports don't evolve THAT quickly, unless they are new.

I do agree though, that Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and to a lesser extent Murray are aging and slowing down (maybe not Djokovic so much), and there aren't the same caliber of players to fill the void.

That being said, we've seen players such as Wawrinka, Cilic, and Del Potro, rise to the occasion, and play phenomenal tennis to win major titles. This seems to have given ALL the players more confidence to win against the big 3+1.

 

[mike danny]

Which means what? Djokovic doesn't lose 4-4-4 to players with busted hips. Watch Kuerten v Federer at FO 2004. Nalbandian was beating Federer at FO before he had to retire.


Federer played, like four tough opponents in 2004. Out of the lot of them, Hewitt is an easy matchup, Safin was dead in the final of AO, got lucky against Roddick at W04 with the rain delay and Agassi made it tough in US Open. The only thing you can say is that it took, at that time, the most accomplished FO player to beat Federer at the FO.



Djokovic, in 2011, simply played better than everyone at AO, W and US Open. No delays, tired opponents or easy matchups in finals. He was consistently either giving Federer, Nadal or Murray beatdowns or beating them in tough, physical matches (aside from FO).

Also Federer by then didn't yet reach a level high enough to win RG. But outside of RG he was super dominant.

 

[Anaconda]

Classy as always. Anaconda the great revisionist.

10,580 posts and you have the nerve to critique my posts? Sad that people get angry at those who believe Djokovic is a better player than Federer. You live in a cave, have nothing better to do than quote people for the sake of quoting.


Please put me on your ignore list and don't quote me again.





Firstservingman: If you are going to quote me, have a point. You have not addressed the facts I have provided. You clearly didn't watch W04 final if you think Roddick was easy.



Mike Danny: 2006 was the year Blake, Davydenko and Nalbandian compromised the rest of the top 5. Robredo got high in the rankings for winning an MS title, what's best is that Roddick still had the third best year despite playing complete crap all year round. Djokovic would have an absolute field day with these players. Ljubicic even made the MC. 2006 was a very poor and dull year for tennis.





Federer's form in 2005 was as good as Djokovic's in 2011. This was his best year for tennis quality. Would have won WTF 2005 if not for the ankle.

 

[Feather]

10,580 posts and you have the nerve to critique my posts? Sad that people get angry at those who believe Djokovic is a better player than Federer. You live in a cave, have nothing better to do than quote people for the sake of quoting.


Please put me on your ignore list and don't quote me again.





Firstservingman: If you are going to quote me, have a point. You have not addressed the facts I have provided. You clearly didn't watch W04 final if you think Roddick was easy.



Mike Danny: 2006 was the year Blake, Davydenko and Nalbandian compromised the rest of the top 5. Robredo got high in the rankings for winning an MS title, what's best is that Roddick still had the third best year despite playing complete crap all year round. Djokovic would have an absolute field day with these players. Ljubicic even made the MC. 2006 was a very poor and dull year for tennis.





Federer's form in 2005 was as good as Djokovic's in 2011. This was his best year for tennis quality. Would have won WTF 2005 if not for the ankle.

You said Federer got lucky with Roddick in your previous post, now you backtracked and say that Roddick was tough.

Well, I saw the match. Roger played really well to win that match. I think only Pete or Roger could have beaten Roddick that way.

 

[Anaconda]

You said Federer got lucky with Roddick in your previous post, now you backtracked and say that Roddick was tough.

Well, I saw the match. Roger played really well to win that match. I think only Pete or Roger could have beaten Roddick that way.

Never backtracked. The poster implied Roddick was easy. Federer did get lucky with the rain delay. What don't you understand?

 

[Feather]

Never backtracked. The poster implied Roddick was easy. Federer did get lucky with the rain delay. What don't you understand?

It was just one break in the third set. Roddick was leading 4-2 in third set when the rain came. They have split the first two sets. Roger started to serve after the rain delay, and immediately Roddick lost serve and it became 4-4. Is that what you say Federer got lucky?

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Firstservingman: If you are going to quote me, have a point. You have not addressed the facts I have provided. You clearly didn't watch W04 final if you think Roddick was easy.

W04 Final was because Roddick was a good player.
I said he was a favourable match-up for Federer.
Their H2H of 21-3 would tend to indicate that.

Anyway, my point was that you are denigrating Federer by saying his competition was weak, when:

A: It wasn't, he was just too good for them.

B: Even if they weren't, it wouldn't matter.

And that when people do this, it reeks of jealousy.

Same for Djokovic, what matters is the titles, looking at competition is too subjective.

 

[Anaconda]

It was just one break in the third set. Roddick was leading 4-2 in third set when the rain came. They have split the first two sets. Roger started to serve after the rain delay, and immediately Roddick lost serve and it became 4-4. Is that what you say Federer got lucky?

When rain (something no one had any control over) stops momentum and the guy leading comes out flat, it's lucky.

 

[mike danny]

When rain (something no one had any control over) stops momentum and the guy leading comes out flat, it's lucky.

This is why the center court roof is a great adition.

 

[mike danny]

10,580 posts and you have the nerve to critique my posts? Sad that people get angry at those who believe Djokovic is a better player than Federer. You live in a cave, have nothing better to do than quote people for the sake of quoting.


Please put me on your ignore list and don't quote me again.





Firstservingman: If you are going to quote me, have a point. You have not addressed the facts I have provided. You clearly didn't watch W04 final if you think Roddick was easy.



Mike Danny: 2006 was the year Blake, Davydenko and Nalbandian compromised the rest of the top 5. Robredo got high in the rankings for winning an MS title, what's best is that Roddick still had the third best year despite playing complete crap all year round. Djokovic would have an absolute field day with these players. Ljubicic even made the MC. 2006 was a very poor and dull year for tennis.





Federer's form in 2005 was as good as Djokovic's in 2011. This was his best year for tennis quality. Would have won WTF 2005 if not for the ankle.

Djokovic still wouldn't do as well as Federer. Roger reached 16 finals in 17 tournaments he entered in. Regardless of competition, Djokovic wouldn't come close to that.

Blake and Davydenko didn't play bad. Blake in particular gave Roger a tough match at the USO. It could have gone 5 sets. Blake also reached the IW final and the WTF final.

As for Ljubicic he also reached the masters cup in 2005. He pushed Federer to a deciding set tiebreak. Hardly a weak player.

 

[NatF]

Just sounds like sour grapes to me...The win/loss record of top 10 players in those years wasn't any weaker than the years that preceded or came later.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

Federer always tries to be positive, so he's never going to publicly admit to negative aspects of his game, but make no mistake, he is a worse player than he was in his heyday and at his physical peak. Same has happened and will continue to happen to all the other greats, including the current No.1, Djokovic. This is not only true in tennis, but all sport. Decline is inevitable and unavoidable despite our best efforts to prevent it.

I agree here. Fed simply can't concede that he has important physical limitations. He is trying to brainwash himself that he is still capable of being a top player and beating Djokovic and Nadal. And at least he as right about the former (sometimes).