Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Did you see me cover Med's losses before 2019 or something? And did he lost matches to the Big 3 when he was 17-18?

So now that I debunked your Stan argument, you're changing the subject :laughing:
No, the point with Med is that he's already more success aginst Djokovic than Roddick did against Agassi. End of story.

Stan Wawrinka beat Fed, beat Nadal, and beat Djokovic. Roddick had an even record with old Hewitt and a slightly better h2h against Safin (and they only played one match before 2004), and let's say nothing about his record against Federer.

Yes, Stan Wawrinka is a better player than Roddick.
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Murray and Wawrinka are a league above likes of Roddick and Hewitt. Hewitt is closer, but he was finished as a top player after 2005. The game evolved and moved on.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
So far from level of play and results I would put them similar tier as Roddick / Nalbandian / Davydenko. They need to win more slams to jump into the Murray+Stan tier
They need to win one to be in the Roddick category.

Maybe the Nalbandian / Davydenko / Blake category.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
No, the point with Med is that he's already more success aginst Djokovic than Roddick did against Agassi. End of story.

Stan Wawrinka beat Fed, beat Nadal, and beat Djokovic. Roddick had an even record with old Hewitt and a slightly better h2h against Safin (and they only played one match before 2004), and let's say nothing about his record against Federer.

Yes, Stan Wawrinka is a better player than Roddick.
Roddick didn't really get to play aging Agassi many times once he matured. They only played 3 matches.

Stan is better than Roddick, but not against Federer, which was my entire point and then you tried to deflect it :laughing:

Heck, you've completely gone off the rails now in this discussion. :laughing:
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Roddick didn't really get to play aging Agassi many times once he matured. They only played 3 matches.

Stan is better than Roddick, but not against Federer, which was my entire point and then you tried to deflect it :laughing:

Heck, you've completely gone off the rails now in this discussion. :laughing:
Not deflecting anything. The point is that Federer's competition was ok, at best, and that's pretty generous.

Your comment that "Federer had challenges" just doesn't hold water. You've brought up old Agassi, weak Roddick, and MIA Hewitt and Safin. Who are his challengers? Nalbandian?
 

NoleIsBoat

Hall of Fame
Not deflecting anything. The point is that Federer's competition was ok, at best, and that's pretty generous.

Your comment that "Federer had challenges" just doesn't hold water. You've brought up old Agassi, weak Roddick, and MIA Hewitt and Safin. Who are his challengers? Nalbandian?
He basically had no one apart from baby, developing Nadal who didn’t do much outside of clay. Once proper competition emerged from 08, the slams win rate went down.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not deflecting anything. The point is that Federer's competition was ok, at best, and that's pretty generous.

Your comment that "Federer had challenges" just doesn't hold water. You've brought up old Agassi, weak Roddick, and MIA Hewitt and Safin. Who are his challengers? Nalbandian?
I said that Fed didn't have as easy of a time winning slams as you say.

So what if he was pushed by lesser players? Nearly half of Djoker's slam finals were lost against lesser players and he gets a pass for it.

Djoker and Nadal have also won lots of slams with no challengers according to you and, again, they get a pass.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
I said that Fed didn't have as easy of a time winning slams as you say.

So what is he was pushed by lesser players? Nearly half of Djoker's slam finals were lost against lesser players and he gets a pass for it.
I'm not giving him a pass, I'm just replying to the thread title: Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?

As far as Novak, I don't think his losses to Wawrinka are worse than Federer's loss to Safin in 2005. And Rafa's had his fair share of head-shaking losses, too. But I do think Novak's getting off way too easy right now with the NextGen.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
I'm not giving him a pass, I'm just replying to the thread title: Why is the weak era generally associated with Federer's opponents?

As far as Novak, I don't think his losses to Wawrinka are worse than Federer's loss to Safin in 2005. And Rafa's had his fair share of head-shaking losses, too. But I do think Novak's getting off way too easy right now with the NextGen.
Fed has only one loss to Safin, Novak has 3 to Stan.
 
Well inevitably NextGen will start racking up slams starting next year so they will be considered far great players than Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Nalbandian, Safin etc. who have 5 slams combined
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Not deflecting anything. The point is that Federer's competition was ok, at best, and that's pretty generous.

Your comment that "Federer had challenges" just doesn't hold water. You've brought up old Agassi, weak Roddick, and MIA Hewitt and Safin. Who are his challengers? Nalbandian?
It's funny that you're willing to give the Next Gen the benefit of hindsight without Djokodal in the future and yet have no problem calling Roddick weak who would have won 4-5 slams without Fed too.

And LOL at Hewitt bwing MIA.
 

Nadal15thslam

Hall of Fame
Nadal entered a lot less slams than the other 2 and he still has 20 gs. He also had the toughest competition, his only freebie slam was Us Open 2017
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
It's funny that you're willing to give the Next Gen the benefit of hindsight without Djokodal in the future and yet have no problem calling Roddick weak who would have won 4-5 slams without Fed too.

And LOL at Hewitt bwing MIA.
My main problem is that Hewitt and Safin might have poached from him if Roger wasn't there

And I don't give the NextGen the benefit of the doubt. But I don't understand how you can simply let slide Federer's struggles (and 5 sets is a struggle) against ol' Agassi and act like Agassi was such a better player than ol' Djokovic.

The NextGen might do absolutely nothing in their careers, and yesterday's second semifinal was hardly promising. In fact, I'm not putting too much stock in Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, or Rublev. My only point is that you can't write them off yet.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Safin had more injuries than Stan, which is saying a lot. Not to mention the fact that Roger never reached Hewitt during the time period when he won his Slams.
Hewitt was just as good in 04-05 as he was in 01-02 in slams. In fact he was more consistent.
in 01-02: hewitt had 2 wins, 1 semi, 1 QF
in 04-05: hewitt had 2 slam finals, 2 semis, 2 QFs

Hewitt lost to fed 5x in slams in 04-05, to a marauding Safin in AO 05 and to winner Gaudio in RG 04. All 7 losses of Hewitt in slams in that period to the eventual winner of the slam.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My main problem is that Hewitt and Safin might have poached from him if Roger wasn't there

And I don't give the NextGen the benefit of the doubt. But I don't understand how you can simply let slide Federer's struggles (and 5 sets is a struggle) against ol' Agassi and act like Agassi was such a better player than ol' Djokovic.

The NextGen might do absolutely nothing in their careers, and yesterday's second semifinal was hardly promising. In fact, I'm not putting too much stock in Medvedev, Zverev, Tsitsipas, or Rublev. My only point is that you can't write them off yet.
Playing 5 sets with Agassi proves that Agassi wasn't washed up and finished like you said.

Who exactly pushed Djokovic to 5 on hard from the Next Gen?
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
My main problem is that Hewitt and Safin might have poached from him if Roger wasn't there
Might have, might have not. They wouldn't have won every time. They barely beat Roddick in some matches.

Wimb 2004/2009 Roddick, for example, would beat any Hewitt or Safin, IMO.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Might have, might have not. They wouldn't have won every time. They barely beat Roddick in some matches.

Wimb 2004/2009 Roddick, for example, would beat any Hewitt or Safin, IMO.
Yes and no. I think Roddick reached that high level (at least in 2009) because everyone jeered him for being unable to beat Federer. Federer's brilliance created the 2009 version of Andy Roddick. Would his game evolved the same way? I don't know. I do think he would have won a few more, but I am not sure about the number and I think you are too generous. For example, Haas (who lost in the semis to Roger in '09) also had a slight advantage in the h2h, in spite of his many injures, and perhaps could have taken advantage if Roger wasn't there, whether in 2009 or some other year.
 

Aabye5

Hall of Fame
Playing 5 sets with Agassi proves that Agassi wasn't washed up and finished like you said.

Who exactly pushed Djokovic to 5 on hard from the Next Gen?
It's not just about hard, although that is his best surface.

For exaple, do you think the different surfaces have less variation in speed today than they did when Agassi played? If you believe that the courts are more homogeneous, then surely his level shouldn't drop as much just because the surface changes. (This isn't exactly my opinion, btw)
 
2019 is stronger ...except thiem None of the NextGem were up to the mark with consistency.

All the 4 slams went to 33 year olds...and you call it stronger.

People who call 2004-7 as weak because they can't digest the fact that how dominant Federer was.

A player vulturing slams in last 3 years with Next Gen mugs in not weak but a player beating his competition in his prime is weaker.

Height of stupidity and absurdity is unparalleled with Djoko fanbase.

Competition started weakening from 2015 and it went downhill in 2018 and today it is Nonexistant.
Convenient that incredibly dominant Federer fell off the table in quality in 2011 when Djokovic matured and couldn't beat Nadal very often even earlier. These assertions are simply opinions. Saying them over and over may seem to make them true, but my opinion is they are not and have no clear-cut evidence to suggest that Federer was so dominant.
 
The AO F was a terrible match, who cares if Nadal is better than Hewitt and Roddick? This same Nadal hasn't eon a set against Djokovic on HC in 8 years. Even Hewitt and Roddick were never this bad against Federer.
Or maybe Djokovic is just that much better strategically and tactically on hardcourt than Nadal. The speculation continues.
 
Top