Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by illusions30, Oct 17, 2013.
TDK is the only fan who think his favorite player is invincible, the god of fire and water.
How can you compare... Rosol/Nadal played 1 match, Federer/Nadal played more than 30.
It is a fair comparison.
Teen Fed beat old Pete.
Enetring in prime Rafa beat semi-old Fed.
It still makes no sense to say one of them have great competition and the other have weak competition. Either they both the strong or weak.
But Federer in 2008-2009 made 7 finals out of 8 grand slams, and won 3 :shock:
nothing to do with Sampras 2001
nice to have an interesting debate without fighting, makes a change
be right back after 12 sets of push ups :lol:
Yes, tell us more about Fed and Nadal were playing from a different planet since 2005.
Ok, this is a bad example. Not enough data. Just an example to prove a point.
Nole was tougher for Rafa in 2011 than for Fed. But Rafa was tougher for Fed.
Sampras 14 majors champion and nr.1 seed at RG? Not very tough at RG, but on paper he is tough.
On paper Fed is tough W 2013, but in reality not so much.
Roddick and Davy lead h2h with Rafa and Nole. So on paper they are tough competition for Fed. They are combined against Fed what? 35-3, I don't even know, lol.
Ferrer is a slam finalist. Beat Murray and Rafa at majors. Has at least 5 wins vs Murray, Rafa, Nole. Fed is undefeated against him.
So, you see my point. Matchups and current form, primes matter a lot.
Sampras in 2001 wasn't in his prime but on grass he was still king and a clear favorite to win Wimbledon.
Watch Federer play in 2004-2007 and you will understand 2008-2009 was past his prime. That is when a 5 years younger player start to shine.
But his opponent was nr.2 and was a slam champion.
Petes opponent was nr.12 and a teen and didn't have the belief yet. He never won a major. It evens out.
Pete was more out of his prime than Fed, but Feds opponent was closer to his prime. So it evens out.
Yeah and also what TMF said. Pete was defending champ in 2001.
of course, and how conveniently. Just shows Nadal/Sampras fanboys only rear their ugly heads when Roger's struggling. Had this poll been taken a few months ago these same posters would've been under a rock hiding their heads.
This is when non haters chat. It's fun isn't it?
True. But TW and making sense doesn't belong in the same sentence
Sampras won 7 out of 8 Wimbledon and was gunning for his 8 in 2001. Sampras faced a 19 years old Federer with no experience. However 2008-2009 Federer faced a peak Nadal. Big difference.
Yes, I know it's getting ridiculous. If we were comparing Emerson to Laver then that makes sense because they were playing in a separate field(amateur and pro). Nadal fans think Federer to Nadal is like Laver to Emerson.:shock:
i agree, good point
Obviously, it's Federer. The poll doesn't lie. :twisted:
all that is says is that 2000-2003 was weak not 2004-2007
2003 was a strong year, high levels of tennis.
And then the alarm clock rang and you woke up.
Sure it does ....it just wasn't quite as weak as before because new players started .....repeated STARTED to come on the scene....specifically Nadalmin 2005 when he won his first FO.....but still far from a challenger on grass or hards.
You weren't watching tennis then so how would you know?
Your right ....I was watching one player against a bunch of little girls....that's not tennis.
The weak era theory became popular when Nadal started to beat Federer more often than not (actually, he dominated him until Wimbledon 2006).
Then some smart voices designed a thesis that Federer's years of domination (2004-2007, unseen in Open Era) could not have been possible had he had a better competition - otherwise, how to explain that Federer can beat everybody else but one kid from Majorca, who actually dominates him!
The point is that Nadal has always had both game and mental strength to beat Federer (other two players, from Fed's generation, who has a mental strength to beat him were Nalbandian and Hewitt, and they both have decent H2H record against him). No matter the circumstances, the time they play, the difference in age, Nadal would have had his numbers always.
The problem is that this doesn't mean (in my opinion, at least) the era was weak. Nadal is tough customer for Federer, his hardest opponent, but everybody has their nemesis: Borg had Mac, Mac had Lendl, Lendl had Becker, Agassi had Sampras, Sampras Krajicek and that's nothing new in tennis and it definitely doesn't make an era weak.
But, to those who claim that Federer was lucky because Djokovic and Murray (for god sake...) weren't in their prime, when he dominated the field, I would say the oppose: Djokovic and Murray were lucky that they hadn't been reaching finals and semis at Slams. Murray beat Federer in Slam (barely) for the first time this year, when Federer was 32 yrs old, after five sets against Tsonga - and he needed another five sets to beat him.
Djokovic's hardest opponent in 2011, when he dominated everybody, was 30 years old Federer, who beat him at RG and pushed him at USO like nobody. Not to mention that Federer is the only man who's beaten Djokovic in every of four Majors.
Basically, Federer's proven that he can beat those guys even now when he is far from his best years - except Nadal, but that doesn't make one era weak.
How many Slams would have Nadal won, had he played prime Djokovic since 2008? That's who silly looks this game.
Serena Williams. Her only worthy comp has been Justine Henin IMHO.
Gonzales probably. Of these guys his era was the earliest (50s prime) after WW2 let's not kid ourselves sport was nowhere near its full development yet (different rules too, i.e. having too serve with one foot at the ground at all times). I think contemporary tennis has the highest competition pool naturally as more people have the opportunity to pick up the racquet and the tour is soundly established and organized.
You might consider doing some research before releasing a load of BS. If you do, you'll see that no less than five players had very good years in 2003. Good years in tennis come about when a decent number of players have good seasons. 2003 wasn't a great year, but it was as strong as anything that came before, going back as far as 1995, which was the strongest year of the Sampras era.
Well if you consider Federer the GOAT, wouldnt that technically mean Nadal had it even harder facing GOAT and hard court and grass court GOAT (which I presuming you believe) Federer, as opposed to Federer only facing clay court GOAT and #2 or #3 all time Nadal?
It is funny to see Federer and Nadal dominating both the toughest competition poll and the weakest though. Isnt that a contradiction of sorts. Also funny to see some of the exact same people who voted Federer as toughest competition voting Nadal as weakest competition, and vice versa the other way too. How could one be the best and one the worst. They were essentialy the same era, so one cant be that much better or worse than the other as far as competition they faced, to the point of one having the hardest competition ever and one the worst, as quite a few people have voted.
Is there a neutral choice?
Juan Carlos Ferrero defeats Martin Verkerk in the finals at the FO! (A couple of household names, GOAT candidates there.)
2003 FO: Vince Spadea does better than Federer. A great year!
Forza, you distort tennis history. Gonzalez had arguably the strongest competition!
Everyone who watched that era knows that it was a transitional period with everyone waiting to see who would become the dominant player.
That's not a knock on Federer that he was able to step in and take the lead at that time, but the competition was weak, and that's a fact. It's good to see a writer telling the truth instead of fluffing it up all the time.
Federer was lucky, but that doesn't mean he wasn't good. He was, he just didn't have the competition that merited this all time supremacy he's been credited for.
It was until nineteen year-old Nadal arrived that Federer was even presented a challenge, but, still a teenager he needed time on the tour, experience learning how to play and pace himself on the professional tour and experience playing a variety of players, surfaces, and styles.
This transition at a young age, regardless of talent, is evidenced by Jr. champs Monfils and Gasquet who weren't able to make that seamless a passage into the pro ranks.
So, it's ridiculous to say that any nineteen year-old should have been able to dominate a tour just as he was getting his own feet wet. Just like Federer didn't at his age, nor did del Potro. Even Pete didn't do it at nineteen. He won a major and then had a two to three hiatus while he learned how to manage playing on the professional tour.
The standards for Nadal are unbelievably high, especially considering that he is a moonballer that can only play on one surface.
That last part was an accusation I thought would be over after this year, but apparently not!
And IMO even if Nadal end up costing Federer some slam victories (like all rivals), that rivalry was important not only to give some much needed competition to peak Federer, but to eventually motivate him to rethink his game approach.
I feel maybe he should have rethinked his tennis even more (he would potencially have a better H2H if he had done it), but he always says the Nadal challenge was the thing that drove him to question his tennis, more than anything else
Wow... Its a runaway. The Swiss "GOAT" with the WEAKEST competition:twisted:
If it's a fact that the competition was weak, you should be able to prove it. Go ahead.
You apparently don't know what moonballing is. Go to YouTube and check out some clips of Harold Solomon in action. The term was coined for his style of play.
I don't think Nadal is a moonballer.
That's what he's been accused of on this board countless times.
He is right actually. Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero, and Federer were the 4 slam winners that year and all were playing excellent tennis this year. Agassi and Federer are all time greats, Ferrero is a top 10 clay courter of the Open Era who was at his all time peak on clay but also playing some surprisingly top tennis on hard courts, and Roddick did the summer triple which only Nadal has done since.
Actually i thought the term was coined for Andrea jaegers style of play??
There's a whole article proving it was weak....everyone universally agrees it was a transitional period ....only here at federer warehouse is it a debate .
poor sampras`s **** , your fanatism blind your mind.
the american GOAT who won some wimbledons without face a TOP-20 PLAYER , LOLLLLLLLLLLLLL or had a main rival like agassi in drugs and 2 years out of tennis.
OR lost against nobodys on clay like delgado ROLFFFFFFFFFFMAOOO.
federer recovered the nº1 and won wimbledon against murray and djokovic with back problems , and sampras was destroyed by herwitt and safin in slams , player who were worst than peak nole and murray.
Exactly. Other than Nadal WHO has proven to consistently beat Roger? NOT even Djokovic, who in his best year, couldn't beat Roger on his worst surface. He's won a few times versus him in slams, but Fed has had him on ropes nearly every single time (minus his one AO loss of 2008 and the FO SF loss of 2012) DESPITE his being way past his best years. So what is this wonderful competition that Nadal has now which Federer didn't have. Federer at his peak beats every single one of these guys and MORE especially if AO hadn't changed to plexicushion.
The poll has Nadal and Sampras fanboys concentrated, while the Fed-fan votes are split :twisted:
I can't wait to see Nadal struggle. Ya'll will just crawl under a rock as usual.
Actually the weak competition theory all started by Sampras fans. When Federer was chasing Sampras in the mid-2000, Sampras fans were jealous/bitter of Roger's success rate and produces better numbers, so they resort to down talk Federer for every trophy he got his hands on. Since they got nothing to defend Sampras, they clutch at straws by calling Fed has weak competition.
Nadal fans didn't invent weak competition theory. They learned it from Sampras fans and today they copycat everything that was use to minimize Federer.
Sampras fans believe the 90s has greater competition. Nadal fans believe they boy has the toughest competition. What's left in between is 2004-2007 is the weakest field in the history of sport.
It's funny but Nadal was an integral part of that 2004-2007 and amassed THREE of his majors in that period and a good chunk of his masters titles including the only masters he ever won indoors.
And if Federe had weak competition, Nadal's competition on clay has been flat-out pitiable. Not a single clay-specialist to speak of. At least most players today prefer HC so there's fair competition there.
1. I assure you that Harold Solomon's play inspired the use of the term "moonballing".
2. It's true, the period in question was transitional, between a previous period in which one GOAT candidate (Sampras) was active and that in which another (Federer, soon to be joined by Nadal) was even more successful. GOAT candidates, however, aren't a dime a dozen. Consider the 80s post-Borg. There's no GOAT candidate during that decade, is there? Does that mean it was a weak period?
I define a (relatively) weak year as one in which there are few players compiling good overall records (good won-lost percentage, several tournament victories and success in majors). 1997 is such a year. The year-end number two, Rafter had a won-lost record of 65-29, and won but one tournament (albeit the US Open). 29 losses is a hell of a lot, far too many for a year's number-two man. In fact, it's close to the record for losses by the number-two man and that record is held by Kafelnikov, loser of a whopping 32 matches in 1999, another relatively weak year. In 1997, only Sampras had a first-class year.
In 2003, five players had very good years. Illusions 30 mentioned four of them in an earlier post. To those four you can add Coria, who finished the year with a 60-16 record and five tournament Ws, including Masters Hamburg. His record on clay was 39-4. In majors, he had a SF and a QF, not great, but not pitiful either. Overall, that's pretty good for the #5 man.
Try to identify a year between 1995 and 2004 exclusive that's better than 2003.
Both Sampras and Nadal fans are don't like the idea of Roger being the greatest, that's for sure. I think Sampras fans call weak competition were an act out of desperation, and Nadal fans are downright comical because of their contradiction.
I think the way Roger took down Nadal and Djokovic last year and took over the no.1 ranking is enough proof of how good he really is. Too bad some fanboys can't stand it but the Nadal/Sampras fans have absolutely NO CLAIM over a weak era argument. Nadal has had no real competition on clay and Pete's main rival was absent during his peak. So basically they should put their foot where their mouth is.
You don't call Federer , djokovic , Coria competition on clay?
Well I guess no one is real competition against Nadal on clay...so in a way your right .
Separate names with a comma.