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

[mike danny]

Because low-ranked players were consistently reaching higher stages of grand slams. If Federer wasn't around to win slams, they could've been won by literally anyone (e.g. Philippoussis)

Current era is not weak by any means; Medvedev, Tsitsipas, Thiem, Zverev have won great titles (except GS) and more or less consistently reach higher stages of GS tournaments. People say they're weak just because they haven't been winning grand slams, but that's fallacious logic. They haven't won slams because they had to consistently play against two of the three GOAT players still playing at a crazy high level.
I would even argue that current next gen is at least as good as Delpo and Wawrinka were in the last decade

The current gen is one of the weakest crops of players, not even being able to win one slam against the geriatric Big 3. Embarrassing.

 

[Aabye5]

Fair enough, but 2019 had no peak Federer. It's extremely doubtful that Djokovic and Nadal would have won as much as they did with 2004 Federer in their path. So 2019 looks stronger because there was no ATG at the peak of his abilities.

AO in 2004 was great, better than 2019.

Wimb was also great with Hewitt and Roddick being the only ones to take sets off Fed that entire grasscourt season so it was not weak. Better level from the finalists, IMO, than in 2019, which was geezer land, but still a good Wimb definitely.

USO was great with the Federer-Agassi match and then Fed raising his level. Fed also had a more difficult draw than Nadal in 2019.

FO was bad, yeah, but the other slams were all great.

Don't think it's clear cut that 2019 is better. And Tsitsipas beating Federer is as irrelevant as it gets.

Guys were giving 2004 Fed tougher matches than they were giving old Djokodal.

Sure, I agree with the bolded part. I also think if Fed was closer to their ages, they would have shut him out of a lot more Slams....but I digress

The point is that in 2004 you had one young pup proving himself to be indisputably the top dog against a bunch of non-ATGs. And you had one fierce old lion (and ATG, Agassi) trying to put Federer in his place. It was exciting, you could tell you were witnessing history. It was a legendary season, no doubt. However...

In 2019, you have three old lions (and THREE ATGs) fighting for the Slam race. And none of the shoulda, woulda, couldas matter when you look at their trophy cases. A 20-16 match will always be more impressive than a 4-8 match, because one match could decide the max number of Slams ever won.

No, Federer was not at his best, by any means, but he still had a lot of fight in him. And Nadal and Djokovic were still quite impressive.

 

[Aabye5]

Though not all instances of that are equal. 2004-2007 Fed having few threats isn't quite the same as 30+yo Djoker having few threats.

No, it's worse! A young player needs more challenges...otherwise when new, great players come on the scene it ends badly...

 

[Quaichang]

He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.

You did not mention Roddick who would’ve been a multi slam winner.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

No, it's worse! A young player needs more challenges...otherwise when new, great players come on the scene it ends badly...

Well it wasn't all that bad. Fed actually stayed competitive with them. It's the only reason we get the 40-15 memes after all.

 

[mike danny]

No, it's worse! A young player needs more challenges...otherwise when new, great players come on the scene it ends badly...

Federer had challenges.

And it's worse having it easier at 34 than at 24.

 

[mike danny]

Sure, I agree with the bolded part. I also think if Fed was closer to their ages, they would have shut him out of a lot more Slams....but I digress

The point is that in 2004 you had one young pup proving himself to be indisputably the top dog against a bunch of non-ATGs. And you had one fierce old lion (and ATG, Agassi) trying to put Federer in his place. It was exciting, you could tell you were witnessing history. It was a legendary season, no doubt. However...

In 2019, you have three old lions (and THREE ATGs) fighting for the Slam race. And none of the shoulda, woulda, couldas matter when you look at their trophy cases. A 20-16 match will always be more impressive than a 4-8 match, because one match could decide the max number of Slams ever won.

No, Federer was not at his best, by any means, but he still had a lot of fight in him. And Nadal and Djokovic were still quite impressive.

Closer to their ages as in their 2019 ages?

I'm sure you meant their young ages and yes, Fed would lose more, but so would they so it evens out.

 

[mike danny]

Sure, I agree with the bolded part. I also think if Fed was closer to their ages, they would have shut him out of a lot more Slams....but I digress

The point is that in 2004 you had one young pup proving himself to be indisputably the top dog against a bunch of non-ATGs. And you had one fierce old lion (and ATG, Agassi) trying to put Federer in his place. It was exciting, you could tell you were witnessing history. It was a legendary season, no doubt. However...

In 2019, you have three old lions (and THREE ATGs) fighting for the Slam race. And none of the shoulda, woulda, couldas matter when you look at their trophy cases. A 20-16 match will always be more impressive than a 4-8 match, because one match could decide the max number of Slams ever won.

No, Federer was not at his best, by any means, but he still had a lot of fight in him. And Nadal and Djokovic were still quite impressive.

In terms of the slam race sure, but in a vacuum, don't see how 2019 beats 2004.

 

[Aabye5]

In terms of the slam race sure, but in a vacuum, don't see how 2019 beats 2004.

There is only match you can point to that has the same quality or historical significance as any of the finals played in 2019. It's not only important, it's also better because Djokovic and Nadal are better players than Roddick and Hewitt.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

LOL what?

If Federer wasn't there, established players would have won the slams.

Philippousis, Bagdhatis, Gonzalez

 

[SonnyT]

Fans of Federer try to transfer the weak era label onto Djokovic. But it won't stick for 2 reasons:

One, Djokovic defeated Federer or Nadal, or both in one case, for the vast majority of his Slams, something like 15 out of 20. The corresponding figure for Federer is only 7 out of 20.

Two, now that Federer and Nadal have declined, of course Djokovic has to defeat other players in the Slam semis and finals.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

In terms of the slam race sure, but in a vacuum, don't see how 2019 beats 2004.

Higher level winner at 2/4 slams, higher level runner up at all 4 slams in 2019. More depth across the whole tour, particularly at the masters. 3 ATGs all playing prime level tennis in different slams.

04 wasn’t quite 06 bad but there’s a reason Federer went undefeated vs the top 10

 

[mike danny]

There is only match you can point to that has the same quality or historical significance as any of the finals played in 2019. It's not only important, it's also better because Djokovic and Nadal are better players than Roddick and Hewitt.

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.

 

[SonnyT]

Tough competition is pretty much wins versus B3. So here's the breakdown.
Federer: 7 out of 20 vs Nadal/Djokovic
Nadal: 14 out of 20 vs Federer/Djokovic
Djokovic: 14 out of 20 vs Federer/Nadal (not 15, as I said earlier)

Both Djokovic and Nadal have 14 tough wins; however 9 of Nadal's 14 came at RG.

Federer has only 7 tough wins; however 3 of his came against baby Djokovic. So only 4 came against championship-caliber ATG's. The list is so short, I can list them: '07-08, '12 Wim and '17 AO.

Fans of Federer will protest that many of the wins were against old Federer. So I ask: which old versions of Federer couldn't have possibly won that Slam, even if he hadn't be defeated by Nadal/Djokovic. There are only 2 such instances: one for Nadal ('19 RG) and one of Djokovic ('20 AO).

 

[Aabye5]

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.

The USO final wasn't so great either.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

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.

Pre final lots of people predicted Nadal to win. Yes it was uncompetitive but that’s because Djokovic played his best ever slam final. Simply too good.

 

[NoleIsBoat]

Tough competition is pretty much wins versus B3. So here's the breakdown.
Federer: 7 out of 20 vs Nadal/Djokovic
Nadal: 14 out of 20 vs Federer/Djokovic
Djokovic: 14 out of 20 vs Federer/Nadal (not 15, as I said earlier)

Both Djokovic and Nadal have 14 tough wins; however 9 of Nadal's 14 came at RG.

Federer has only 7 tough wins; however 3 of his came against baby Djokovic. So only 4 came against championship-caliber ATG's. The list is so short, I can list them: '07-08, '12 Wim and '17 AO.

Fans of Federer will protest that many of the wins were against old Federer. So I ask: which old versions of Federer couldn't have possibly won that Slam, even if he hadn't be defeated by Nadal/Djokovic. There are only 2 such instances: one for Nadal ('19 RG) and one of Djokovic ('20 AO).

Great post! “Old” Federer would have won 5 Wimbledon titles, only 1 less than 20s Federer who won 6! He only won 2/5 finals because 3 times he had peak Djokovic there to stop him.

 

[Third Serve]

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.

Roddick at least approached that level in the AO 2007 SF, and Hewitt wasn’t so hot in the US Open 2004 final either (though that match was still better by virtue of the second set).

Never mind, I saw you were talking streaks, not individual matches.

 

[Djokodal Fan]

Ofcourse Federer is weak era champion. Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippoussis, Roddick and Hewitt are great champions only to the eyes of Federer fans. Federer beat these weak guys to establish his goathood which got exposed when Novak and Nadal started hitting their peak. Age excuse is just something that Fed fans have to escape fair argument. Remind me again, When federer lost Wimbledon 2008, he was 45 right?

Also how many times Federer beat Nadal at Roland Garros?

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Ofcourse Federer is weak era champion. Baghdatis, Gonzales, Philippoussis, Roddick and Hewitt are great champions only to the eyes of Federer fans. Federer beat these weak guys to establish his goathood which got exposed when Novak and Nadal started hitting their peak. Age excuse is just something that Fed fans have to escape fair argument. Remind me again, When federer lost Wimbledon 2008, he was 45 right?

Also how many times Federer beat Nadal at Roland Garros?

You am done the big smart!

 

[travlerajm]

I think this view is only held on TTW. The players, experts, commentators, etc seem to believe otherwise.

The experts, players, commentators, etc get paid to promote the game in its current condition. So they are forced to deny the ugly truth.

 

[mike danny]

Roddick at least approached that level in the AO 2007 SF, and Hewitt wasn’t so hot in the US Open 2004 final either (though that match was still better by virtue of the second set).

Never mind, I saw you were talking streaks, not individual matches.

Yeah, streaks.

 

[mike danny]

The USO final wasn't so great either.

I'm talking streaks by the way.

And yes, the USO final wasn't great, but Fed's tough match occured against Agassi anyway. Just pointing out that Nadal and Djokovic shouldn't always get the benefit of the doubt just because of their names. On that day, Nadal wasn't better than 2004 AO F Safin. He was even worse.

 

[Aabye5]

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.

Are you kidding me? Hewitt was lousy in the 2004 final, you even said yourself.

 

[Aabye5]

Federer had challenges.

And it's worse having it easier at 34 than at 24.

Federer had no challenges when he was young. The best workout he got was from a 34-year-old Agassi. And while I am a big Agassi fan, you can't just say that's enough.

No, it's not. If you are around at 34, you might deserve a break. If you are at 24, you should be building your career through great matches, which Fed did not do until Nadal and Djokovic came along. No one is talking about Roddick's performance anywhere except his one great Wimbledon final and his title winning performance in 03. No one is looking back at his other matches and calling a him an ATG.

Because he wasn't, it's that simple. And the same can be said with Hewitt.

 

[NatF]

Are you kidding me? Hewitt was lousy in the 2004 final, you even said yourself.

Hewitt was facing an absurd weight of shot. He served poorly and made some annoying UE's in points he'd wrestled control of but he wasn't that bad. The standard of tennis from Federer that day is something entirely alien to the last few years.

 

[Aabye5]

Hewitt was facing an absurd weight of shot. He served poorly and made some annoying UE's in points he'd wrestled control of but he wasn't that bad. The standard of tennis from Federer that day is something entirely alien to the last few years.

A Hewitt without a serve is hardly a scary opponent. Like Rafa he needed it go in to do what he did best.

 

[mike danny]

Federer had no challenges when he was young. The best workout he got was from a 34-year-old Agassi. And while I am a big Agassi fan, you can't just say that's enough.

No, it's not. If you are around at 34, you might deserve a break. If you are at 24, you should be building your career through great matches, which Fed did not do until Nadal and Djokovic came along. No one is talking about Roddick's performance anywhere except his one great Wimbledon final and his title winning performance in 03. No one is looking back at his other matches and calling a him an ATG.

Because he wasn't, it's that simple. And the same can be said with Hewitt.

Roddick pushed him at Wimb in 2004, Hewitt and Agassi both pushed him at 2005 USO, Hewitt and Nalbandian pushed him at 2004 AO, Haas and Davydenko pushed him at 2006 AO, Nadal pushed him at 2007 Wimb, Roddick and Blake pushed him at 2006 USO, Roddick and Djokovic pushed him at 2007 USO.

The idea that he didn't have challenges is asinine.

Rafa barely had challenges at RG too and no one bats an eye. Djokovic also didn't have challenges way before he was 34, so the idea that he deserves a break is also asinine.

 

[mike danny]

Are you kidding me? Hewitt was lousy in the 2004 final, you even said yourself.

Yes, so was Nadal in the AO final. Point is Fed had his tough match before, Djokovic didn't.

 

[tex123]

He won most of his slams in an era with no ATGs, apart from Nadal at RG, who he was never able to beat. The biggest winners during that time were Hewitt and Safin, with 2 slams each, along with Agassi who was pretty much retired and finished by that point - not exactly world-beating competition.

Meanwhile, Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with 2 other ATGs, as well as Murray and Wawrinka who are no mugs themselves, with 3 slams apiece. Murray and Wawrinka alone were better than the best competition in 2004-2007, which tells you all you need to know about how weak that era was.

Federer in his younger days was unplayable at times. I think you've forgotten his forehand before he re-tooled it. His shots had just about enough topspin and power to land near the baseline.
Also, don't forget - he re-tooled his backhand his backhand to win 3 more after being stuck at 17. Not an easy feat despite being older than Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal got in his head but he came back and showed what a champion he is. That's a testament to his greatness. He could've gone on and established his supremacy even more by winning Wimbledon (40-15). But, age catches up and plays with your mind.

The field did not matter then. He was just unplayable. What you're seeing in 2020-2021 is a comedy with injuries and players pulling out.

 

[Milanez82]

Federer in his younger days was unplayable at times. I think you've forgotten his forehand before he re-tooled it. His shots had just about enough topspin and power to land near the baseline.
Also, don't forget - he re-tooled his backhand his backhand to win 3 more after being stuck at 17. Not an easy feat despite being older than Nadal and Djokovic. Nadal got in his head but he came back and showed what a champion he is. That's a testament to his greatness. He could've gone on and established his supremacy even more by winning Wimbledon (40-15). But, age catches up and plays with your mind.

The field did not matter then. He was just unplayable. What you're seeing in 2020-2021 is a comedy with injuries and players pulling out.

Field didn't matter until two other Goats arrived fully on the scene. Best evidence of it is as soon as Rafa got injured in 09, Federer almost won 4 slams in a row.

 

[mike danny]

Field didn't matter until two other Goats arrived fully on the scene. Best evidence of it is as soon as Rafa got injured in 09, Federer almost won 4 slams in a row.

But he didn't.

The other 2 GOATS have also had it easy.

 

[Aabye5]

Roddick pushed him at Wimb in 2004, Hewitt and Agassi both pushed him at 2005 USO, Hewitt and Nalbandian pushed him at 2004 AO, Haas and Davydenko pushed him at 2006 AO, Nadal pushed him at 2007 Wimb, Roddick and Blake pushed him at 2006 USO, Roddick and Djokovic pushed him at 2007 USO.

The idea that he didn't have challenges is asinine.

Rafa barely had challenges at RG too and no one bats an eye. Djokovic also didn't have challenges way before he was 34, so the idea that he deserves a break is also asinine.

Roddick was not a great opponent, hence his atrocious h2h against Roger. That Wimbledon was the exception not the rule.

Pump a one-time Slam champ all you want, but it just makes you look all the more desperate. ONE Grand Slam title. To 20. How is that a competition?

 

[mike danny]

Roddick was not a great opponent, hence his atrocious h2h against Roger. That Wimbledon was the exception not the rule.

Pump a one-time Slam champ all you want, but it just makes you look all the more desperate. ONE Grand Slam title. To 20. How is that a competition?

I simply look at the matches where Roger was pushed, who cares about career achievements?

Being challenged means being pushed in matches and Roger was pushed plenty.

By your logic why are Murray and Stan competition? 3 slams to 20. What a joke.

 

[Aabye5]

I simply look at the matches where Roger was pushed, who cares about career achievements?

Being challenged means being pushed in matches and Roger was pushed plenty.

By your logic why are Murray and Stan competition? 3 slams to 20. What a joke.

That matters! We are talking about competition level! And in 2004 Fed's best competition was Agassi, who was 34 years old. True, Federer was better on grass than hard courts, but Roddick couldn't even push him to 5 sets.

As for Murray and Stan, I agree it is a joke. The one caveat is that both have shown they can beat Djokovic at Slams, while Roddick never beat Federer at a Grand Slam.

I think Hewitt and Safin are better comparisons. I don't think they were weak competition, except for the fact that their careers were much shorter due to injuries and walkabouts.

 

[mike danny]

That matters! We are talking about competition level! And in 2004 Fed's best competition was Agassi, who was 34 years old. True, Federer was better on grass than hard courts, but Roddick couldn't even push him to 5 sets.

It doesn't matter unless you have an agenda. Even Novak was pushed by players way beneath him and even lost majors to them.

 

[Aabye5]

It doesn't matter unless you have an agenda. Even Novak was pushed by players way beneath him and even lost majors to them.

No, it matters regardless because it's a fact: Roddick is not the best competition. Novak's NextGen competition isn't great either, which I have acknowledged. As for Wawrinka and Murray:

Reposting this in case you missed the edit above:

That matters! We are talking about competition level! And in 2004 Fed's best competition was Agassi, who was 34 years old. True, Federer was better on grass than hard courts, but Roddick couldn't even push him to 5 sets.

As for Murray and Stan, I agree it is a joke. The one caveat is that both have shown they can beat Djokovic at Slams, while Roddick never beat Federer at a Grand Slam.

I think Hewitt and Safin are better comparisons. I don't think they were weak competition, except for the fact that their careers were much shorter due to injuries and walkabouts.

 

[mike danny]

No, it matters regardless because it's a fact: Roddick is not the best competition. Novak's NextGen competition isn't great either, which I have acknowledged. As for Wawrinka and Murray:

Reposting this in case you missed the edit above:

That matters! We are talking about competition level! And in 2004 Fed's best competition was Agassi, who was 34 years old. True, Federer was better on grass than hard courts, but Roddick couldn't even push him to 5 sets.

As for Murray and Stan, I agree it is a joke. The one caveat is that both have shown they can beat Djokovic at Slams, while Roddick never beat Federer at a Grand Slam.

I think Hewitt and Safin are better comparisons. I don't think they were weak competition, except for the fact that their careers were much shorter due to injuries and walkabouts.

If Federer was pushed in matches, that's all that matters. If he won each GS easily, I would agree with you, but he didn't.

 

[Aabye5]

If Federer was pushed in matches, that's all that matters. If he won each GS easily, I would agree with you, but he didn't.

No, it isn't. Because if you're pushed by weaker players and than stronger players come along such as Novak and Rafa, you end up with crappy h2hs against them, hence diminishing their greatness.

It would be one thing if Roger was the youngest of the group and simply had to gain some experience, but that's not what happened.

 

[mike danny]

No, it isn't. Because if you're pushed by weaker players and than stronger players come along such as Novak and Rafa, you end up with crappy h2hs against them, hence diminishing their greatness.

It would be one thing if Roger was the youngest of the group and simply had to gain some experience, but that's not what happened.

So if Federer wasn't pushed, it's bad.

If he was pushed, it's still bad.

Give me a break, dude.

 

[mike danny]

No, it matters regardless because it's a fact: Roddick is not the best competition. Novak's NextGen competition isn't great either, which I have acknowledged. As for Wawrinka and Murray:

Reposting this in case you missed the edit above:

That matters! We are talking about competition level! And in 2004 Fed's best competition was Agassi, who was 34 years old. True, Federer was better on grass than hard courts, but Roddick couldn't even push him to 5 sets.

As for Murray and Stan, I agree it is a joke. The one caveat is that both have shown they can beat Djokovic at Slams, while Roddick never beat Federer at a Grand Slam.

I think Hewitt and Safin are better comparisons. I don't think they were weak competition, except for the fact that their careers were much shorter due to injuries and walkabouts.

Well, Murray and Stan have also failed against Federer, so it doesn't look good that Djoko0vic lost to them. Maybe Fed is just better at dealing with these kinds of players and that's why he never lost to Roddick.

 

[Aabye5]

Well, Murray and Stan have also failed against Federer, so it doesn't look good that Djoko0vic lost to them. Maybe Fed is just better at dealing with these kinds of players and that's why he never lost to Roddick.

As I said, Hewitt and Safin are the Murray and Stan of this day. And there are three of them, and two of Stan and Murray. And Stan and Murray have more Slam titles between the 2 of them than Hewitt+Safin+Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

As I said, Hewitt and Safin are the Murray and Stan of this day. And there are three of them, and two of Stan and Murray. And Stan and Murray have more Slam titles between the 2 of them than Hewitt+Safin+Roddick.

Because Djokovic wasn't good enough to stop them

Apparently, it's bad that Federer was pushed by weaker players, but it's perfectly fine that Djokovic lost 6 slams to them. Got it

 

[Aabye5]

Because Djokovic wasn't good enough to stop them

Apparently, it's bad that Federer was pushed by weaker players, but it's perfectly fine that Djokovic lost 6 slams to them. Got it

And Federer was barely good enough to stop Roddick. One Slam Wonder Roddick, with a 1-5 h2h against Agassi...that Roddick?

 

[mike danny]

And Federer was barely good enough to stop Roddick. One Slam Wonder Roddick, with a 1-5 h2h against Agassi...that Roddick?

I already covered the 1-5 part against Agassi.

Federer never lost a slam to Roddick, while Djokovic lost 3 to Stan and 2 to Murray, but Fed is still the one at a disadvantage here apparently.

Just give me a break.

 

[abmk]

I already covered the 1-5 part against Agassi.

Federer never lost a slam to Roddick, while Djokovic lost 3 to Stan and 2 to Murray, but Fed is still the one at a disadvantage here apparently.

Just give me a break.

Djoko vs Stan from 13-16 in slams: 3-3
Fed vs Stan from 13-early 17 in slams: 3-1

This is prime years for Djokovic
past it for Fed

 

[Aabye5]

I already covered the 1-5 part against Agassi.

Federer never lost a slam to Roddick, while Djokovic lost 3 to Stan and 2 to Murray, but Fed is still the one at a disadvantage here apparently.

Just give me a break.

How? I see no coverage...

Yes, but point of fact, Murray and Stan are both better players than Roddick. Because not only did he beat Djokovic at a Slam, he also beat Nadal. And while we're at it, let's point out, that while Federer never lost in a Slam to Roddick, he did lose to both Wawrinka and Murray.

BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS. Much like Hewitt and Safin were better than Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

How? I see no coverage...

Yes, but point of fact, Murray and Stan are both better players than Roddick. Because not only did he beat Djokovic at a Slam, he also beat Nadal. And while we're at it, let's point out, that while Federer never lost in a Slam to Roddick, he did lose to both Wawrinka and Murray.

BECAUSE THEY ARE BETTER PLAYERS. Much like Hewitt and Safin were better than Roddick.

Roddick wasn't even a top 10 player for half of his losses against Agassi and he was 17-18 in his first 2. The Next Gen mugs don't have this excuse.

So you're saying that 2013 and 2015 Fed are just as good as the versions of Fed Roddick was dealing with? 2013 AO Fed was a poor version of Fed and Murray still barely won in 5 sets despite being 6 years younger and at the peak of his abilities.

As for Stan, he beat a 34 year old Fed at RG. He's never beaten Fed off clay where Roddick usually faced Fed, so how exactly is that helping your argument?

 

[Aabye5]

Roddick wasn't even a top 10 player for half of his losses against Agassi and he was 17-18 in his first 2. The Next Gen mugs don't have this excuse.

So you're saying that 2013 and 2015 Fed are just as good as the versions of Fed Roddick was dealing with? 2013 AO Fed was a poor version of Fed and Murray still barely won in 5 sets despite being 6 years younger and at the peak of his abilities.

As for Stan, he beat a 34 year old Fed at RG. He's never beaten Fed off clay where Roddick usually faced Fed, so how exactly is that helping your argument?

It's funny you could say the same thing for Medvedev and Novak. Med entered the top 10 in July 2019. Guess how many losses Med had to Djokovic before then? Three. Guess how many losses he's had since then 2.

Stan had to win his the hard way, no one would say that about Roddick.

 

[mike danny]

It's funny you could say the same thing for Medvedev and Novak. Med entered the top 10 in July 2019. Guess how many losses Med had to Djokovic before then? Three. Guess how many losses he's had since then 2.

Stan had to win his the hard way, no one would say that about Roddick.

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