Which GOAT candidate had the weakest competition

Which GOAT candidate had the weakest competition

  • Total voters
    83
The_Order said:
Isn't Federer supposed to be the HC and grass GOAT? Just letting you know, Rafa beat him in majors on those surfaces. Federer was never able to even take Nadal to 5 sets at RG.
Click to expand...

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.
 
The_Order said:
Federer's very weak competition. LOL he'd be ashamed to have fans like you, maybe he reads TTW and this is why his motivation is down, thanks to clowns like you.
Click to expand...

Yes, tell us more about Fed and Nadal were playing from a different planet since 2005.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
How can you compare... Rosol/Nadal played 1 match, Federer/Nadal played more than 30.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
Is it me or you are comparing Sampras 2001 with Federer 2008-2009? How come Federer 2008-2009 was not peak Federer ? :shock:
Click to expand...

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.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
But Federer in 2008-2009 made 7 finals out of 8 grand slams, and won 3 :shock:
nothing to do with Sampras 2001
Click to expand...

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.
 
BobbyOne said:
hoodjem, In this case the place of Federer is okay.
Click to expand...

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.
 
tipsa...don'tlikehim! said:
But Federer in 2008-2009 made 7 finals out of 8 grand slams, and won 3 :shock:
nothing to do with Sampras 2001
Click to expand...

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.
 
jg153040 said:
True. But TW and making sense doesn't belong in the same sentence :)
Click to expand...

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:
 
jg153040 said:
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.
Click to expand...
i agree, good point
 
Part 1.......

The Dark Knight said:
2000-2009 THE DECADE IN TENNIS

As we push onto 2010, all manner of news organizations are feeling the need to sum up the decade that was.  Of course, there is an arbitrariness to picking years that end in nice round numbers like 0.  Not everything fits nicely in a decade.  Players like Stefan Edberg had the good years span across a decade boundary, thus having his good Wimbledon years in the late 1980s, but having his good US Open years in the early 1990s.  Some players, like Sampras have careers that mostly fit within a decade (1990 through 2002).

In any case, with men’s tennis taking a break, perhaps a decade long retrospective is good.

In the year 2000, the “Federer generation” began to make news and it happened at the US Open.  Intriguingly enough, although Roger Federer would become the best of his generation, he was something of a late bloomer.  Others of his generation would make a splash early on.

The first signs of the changing of the guards was the 2000 US Open when Marat Safin beat Sampras in straight sets. Up to 2000, Sampras had had a gaudy 13-2 record.  His only losses came to Stefan Edberg in 1992 US Open (a four set loss) and to Andre Agassi in the 1995 Australian Open (also a four set loss).  Indeed, the US Open would be a showcase for the Federer generation.

In 2001, Pete Sampras would again make the finals, but instead of playing the rangy, powerful Russian, Sampras played Lleyton Hewitt, who played like Agassi, but had the intensity of Connors.  This, too, was a straight set loss.  It was only in 2002 when Sampras finally met someone of his generation, namely, Agassi, that he finally won the US Open, his final Slam.  In 2003, Andy Roddick beat Juan Carlos Ferrero for his first and only major.  Both Andy Roddick and Juan Carlos Ferrero are part of the Federer generation (which also includes Safin, Nalbandian, and Hewitt).

The beginning of the “naught”ies, that is the years following 2000 do not mark a clean break.  Indeed, the greatest American generation of players, which roughly started in 1990, were still having an impact.  During the 1980s, there were questions of American tennis.  Who would replace McEnroe and Connors?  Connors started playing well in 1974 and continued to play top tennis until 1983 though his career lasted nearly a decade longer.  Connors competitive fire, the desire to play tennis, far exceeded the quality of his results.  Players began to hit harder and steadier and move quicker.

Still, Connors was a bit lucky.  Because he was perhaps the hardest hitter of his generation (the 1970s) and because the modern power game didn’t really start to take grip until the 1990s, Connors was able to play through the transitional players who were learning to hit with Becker-like pace, but weren’t quite there yet.  That is, he played players where his flat style bothered them.

McEnroe, too, had his best years in the late 1970s to the early 1980s.  Though he would never reach the heights of those years, he was still someone to be feared, especially at Wimbledon and occasionally at the US Open.  McEnroe’s career might have had a nice hurrah had he beaten Agassi or Sampras in the semis of Wimbledon or the US Open respectively (both in the early 1990s).

Thus, as McEnroe and Connors both managed the occasional spark of brilliance long past the heights of their career, extending up to about 1990, they were soon replaced by the Bollettieri generation.  Although Bollettieri’s students were already making noise in the early 1980s, with two players, Jimmy Arias and Aaron Krickstein, it was Andre Agassi that became the iconic Bollettieri player: big forehand, so-so serve, not much of a volleyer.

The Americans of this generation included: Pete Sampras, Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Michael Chang, Todd Martin, MaliVai Washington, and David Wheaton.  Although not all of these players trained at Bollettieri’s, the Bollettieri influence was undeniable.  These players played against each other.

The class of that field was Pete Sampras and then Andre Agassi.  Agassi, in particular, due to the ups and downs of his personal and professional career, had various times where he was simply not winning, and therefore, not putting his body through the wear and tear that a player like Sampras went through.

Indeed, other than Sampras, who, it should be noted, made 3 US Open finals in a row starting in 2000, and this, during a period of time when most felt Sampras had long past his prime.  However, post 2000 really was Agassi’s period.  With Sampras on the decline, and Agassi having rediscovered tennis, Andre had some of the best years of his careers in the early part of the decade, admittedly, in the friendly confines of Australia.

Perhaps it was the rust that other players had, or the time zone differences, or the heat.  The Australian Open was the one tournament were relative nobodies made it to the finals, often losing to Andre Agassi.

Let’s take a look at the Australian Open finals starting in 2000.

2000 Agassi d Kafelnikov
2001 Agassi d. Clement
2002 Johansson d. Safin
2003 Agassi d. Schuttler
In particular, Clement, Johansson, and Schuttler would never reach another Slam final again.  Indeed, if you look at Agassi’s career starting in 1999, you see that he won 5 of his 8 Slams during that period.  In 1999, he won the French and the US Open.  In 2000, 2001, 2003, he won the Australian Open.  He reached the finals of the US Open in 2002 and 2005.  Although everyone remembers Agassi way back in the late 1980s with the neon clothing, the “image is everything” ads, and the hair that Agassi now says was fake, Agassi’s primary success could arguably be placed in the 2000′s esp. if we cheat a little and take 1999 too.

Agassi was the first player to take advantage of the Sampras void.  Although Sampras played dominating tennis throughout the 1990s, it was mostly at the Slams, and mostly Wimbledon.  For as much as Sampras gets the GOAT label attributed to him, he didn’t play the kind of dominating tennis that Borg, Connors, or McEnroe played.  Sampras never won more than 2 majors in any year, and would have inexplicable lossses to nobodies at lesser tournaments, presumably to save his body for the majors.

Let’s take a look at the French Open.  The French is a strange beast.  Long seen as the “other” tournament, the French inspired players who mastered its gritty surface but struggled on other surfaces.  Thus, the history of tennis prior to the 1970s was really about grass-court tennis, dominated by the Australians and Americans.  Those players occasionally did well enough to win the French too.

During the 1980s, the clay court circuit would often feature dominating performances by the likes of Alberto Mancini and Thomas Muster, players that would do well in Monte Carlo and Rome and Hamburg, but then fizzle to bigger names in the French.  The 1980s had finalists that were recognizable.  Lendl and Wilander were great clay courters that nonetheless could play hard courts too and be relevant on many surfaces.  Those who primarily excelled on clay never managed to punch through at the French.

However, as the 1990s were moving along, the clay court specialists became even stronger, reinforcing the idea that clay court tennis is its own separate game.  These specialists were generally Spaniards or Argentines.  In 1998, Carlos Moya would defeat fellow Spaniard, Alex Corretja, for his one and only Slam.  I 2000, Gustavo Kuerten would win the 2nd of his 3 French Opens over Magnus Norman.  The following year, Kuerten would beat Corretja.  Neither Kuerten nor Corretja ever reached the finals of a Slam other than the French.

Let’s look at 2002-2005 French Open finals

2002 Costa d. Ferrero
2003 Ferrero d. Verkerk
2004 Gaudio d. Coria
2005 Nadal d. Puerta
Ferrero could be seen as a very good player and Nadal became a true champion, but Costa, Gaudio, Coria, and Verkerk? Coria was the number 3 seed, but could almost be considered a 1-hit wonder, a player that peaked for a year, and had maybe 2 other good years, but was otherwise irrelevant.  These years had to be seen as a bit of a low in tennis, where the best of the best were not contending.

Indeed, once Sampras started fading in the early part of 2000, there was a vacuum left.  This was particularly noticeable between November 2000 to February of 2004 when the following players were number 1: Marat Safin, Gustavo Kuerten, Lleyton Hewitt, Andre Agassi, Juan Carlos Ferrero, and Andy Roddick.

Indeed, the lack of a dominant player was noticeable starting in 1996-1999 when Thomas Muster, Marcelo Rios, Carlos Moya, Yevgeny Kafelnikov, and Patrick Rafter would all spend time at number 1.  Admittedly, Sampras had a 102 week period during this time where he was number 1.

Then, came 2004.

Between 2004-2007, Roger Federer became the most dominant player the game has seen.  During this period, he won 11 Slams in 16 attempts.  In the other 5 Slams, he was a finalist twice, a semifinalist twice, and lost in the 3rd round to Gustavo Kuerten at the French.  During this period, he achieved the Small Slam three times: 2004, 2006, and 2007.  No other pro in the Open era has achieved it more than once.  Connors won 3 of 4 in 1974 (he was banned from the French Open) and Wilander won 3 of 4 in 1988 (Wilander never made the finals of Wimbledon).  Rod Laver, of course, won the Grand Slam in 1969.  He won in 1962 as well, but that was pre-Open era, when the best competition were playing pro tennis and banned from these tournaments.
Click to expand...
 
Part two.....

The Dark Knight said:
Part 2

In the latter half of the decade, a new group of players were starting to rise to challenge the Federer generation.  In 2005, Rafael Nadal won the first of 4 consecutive French Open finals.  In 2006, Andy Murray served notice by beating Roger Federer in the 2nd round of Cincinnati.  Roger Federer lost 5 times in 2006.  The other 4 losses?  Rafael Nadal.  (In Rome, Monte Carlo, French Open, and Dubai). Andy Murray would start to gain more attention in 2008 when he reached number 4.

In 2007, Novak Djokovic would reach the semifinals of 3 of 4 Slams, and in one, the US Open, he would make the finals, losing to Roger Federer.  Djokovic would become a solid number 3.  In 2008, Juan Martin del Potro would come out of nowhere to beat Andy Roddick and eventually reach the top 10.

The generation that followed Federer would include: Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, Andy Murray, Juan Martin del Potro, and other players like Marin Cilic, Tomas Berdych, Sam Querrey.  Because these players made strides in the middle of the decade, they are likely to have buzz in 2010 onwards.  Perhaps their success highlight the folly of breaking achievements into decades.

If Sampras’s record 14th Slam win defined the highlight of the 1990s (but stretched in 2002), then clearly, Federer’s 15 Slams with a career Slam defines the 2000s.  Few expected the challenge to Sampras to come so soon after Sampras had achieved the record.  Federer began the assault in 2004 and by 2009 had reached that record, while Sampras achieved the record over a 13 year period (1990 US Open to 2002 US Open).

Now that 2010 is mere weeks away, what will the next decade of tennis bring?
Click to expand...
 
mike danny said:
all that is says is that 2000-2003 was weak not 2004-2007
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
The Dark Knight said:
Your right ....I was watching one player against a bunch of little girls....that's not tennis.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jg153040 said:
If Nadal, the surface GOAT is not considered the toughest competition, then I don't know what is.

Nadal is clay goat and arguably top 3 in the open era. Nobody had it that rough. Rafa took like 8 majors away from Fed. Nobody had such competition, nobody.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TMF said:
All of the posters who voted Federer are anti-Federer. I'm only interested in counting the neutral posters, but unfortunately not too many neutral posters participating in the poll except most of them anti-Fed.
Click to expand...
Is there a neutral choice?
 
NatF said:
2003 was a strong year, high levels of tennis.
Click to expand...
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!
 
Last edited:
forzamilan90 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forza, you distort tennis history. Gonzalez had arguably the strongest competition!
 
The Dark Knight said:
Part 1.......
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheTruth said:
The standards for Nadal are unbelievably high, especially considering that he is a moonballer that can only play on one surface.
Click to expand...

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
 
TheTruth said:
but the competition was weak, and that's a fact.

The standards for Nadal are unbelievably high, especially considering that he is a moonballer that can only play on one surface.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Indio said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think Nadal is a moonballer.

That's what he's been accused of on this board countless times.
 
The Dark Knight said:
And then the alarm clock rang and you woke up.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Indio said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
90's Clay said:
Wow... Its a runaway. The Swiss "GOAT" with the WEAKEST competition:twisted:
Click to expand...

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.
 
Martin J said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
The Dark Knight said:
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 .
Click to expand...

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.
 
mandy01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TMF said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mandy01 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IamGroot
  • Poll Poll
Which slam winner has the weakest backhand?
Replies
11
Views
1K
Chanwan
Chanwan
illusions30
  • Poll Poll
Which female GOAT candidate had the weakest competition
Replies
26
Views
3K
staceyliving
S
KineticChain
Here's the thing... (Roger Federer)
2
Replies
60
Views
8K
Capulin Zurdo
Capulin Zurdo
C
Which was the strongest/weakest era?
Replies
3
Views
914
nguyentuanson16792
nguyentuanson16792
BladeDaywalker
Which player that reached #1 had the weakest resume or competition to justify their ranking?
2
Replies
65
Views
3K
BillKid
BillKid
Back
Top