Why was Federer's competition so one-sided?

thrust

Hall of Fame
Is Roddick an ATG? The comparison OP made always had at least 2 ATG in each era.
Roddick was never an ATG, just look at his competition the year he won the USO. IF Andy was Roger's top competition 03-08 then the rest of the tour was either very weak or very inconsistent. Fact IS that when Rafa and Novak reached their near peak, Roger won fewer slams than he did against the likes of Roddick, Safin or Nalbandian, etc..
 

blablavla

Hall of Fame
Roddick was never an ATG, just look at his competition the year he won the USO. IF Andy was Roger's top competition 03-08 then the rest of the tour was either very weak or very inconsistent. Fact IS that when Rafa and Novak reached their near peak, Roger won fewer slams than he did against the likes of Roddick, Safin or Nalbandian, etc..
how surprising that Roger won less slams vs peak Djokodal. Perhaps the 6 years difference in age has something to do with it?
let's better check the opposition Djokodal had to face since reaching their prime.
who is a stronger opposition: Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian or Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas?
 

Eren

Professional
What's the point of this thread anyway? 08-present Fedr had WAY better competition than Sampras f.e. because both Djokovic and Nadal are better than Sampras.

Even in 03-12, IMO, Federer had better grass competition than Sampras with the likes of, Djokovic (won against him in 2012), Nadal (better grass courter than Agassi), Roddick (imo equal to Ivanisevic who also only won one Slam), Hewitt (one time Wimbledon champ), Murray (2-time Wimbledon champ).

IF Fedr had it easy at the start, he had it the toughest in his 30s.
 

King No1e

G.O.A.T.
I think King No1e is talking about Nadal, Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Del Potro - which is a great generation, and I don't think it's even possible to disagree.

If he is indeed talking about the current new generation, then I too will slap my thigh in laughter :)
Yes, I was talking about Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray. Along with Del Potro, Tsonga, Berdych, Soderling, Wawrinka, and Cilic who were almost entirely shut out by those 3.
 
What's the point of this thread anyway? 08-present Fedr had WAY better competition than Sampras f.e. because both Djokovic and Nadal are better than Sampras.

Even in 03-12, IMO, Federer had better grass competition than Sampras with the likes of, Djokovic (won against him in 2012), Nadal (better grass courter than Agassi), Roddick (imo equal to Ivanisevic who also only won one Slam), Hewitt (one time Wimbledon champ), Murray (2-time Wimbledon champ).

IF Fedr had it easy at the start, he had it the toughest in his 30s.
That one may be a step too far.
Let's see:
(comparing by draw tuffness)
1993 > 2003
2004 > 1994
1995 > 2005
1996 = 2008
1997 = 2006
2007 > 1998
1999 = 2009
2012 > 2000

Fred edges this slightly in the last season. So the difference is small/irrelevant.
 

Sweet Pete

New User
Everybody craps on Fed's competition but how come no one talks about Djoker's? Close to cakewalk since 2015 with no prime ATGs around and useless younger gens.
because Djoker spent the 8 years prior to 2015 breaking through Federer and Nadal's duopoly on tennis and making the sport interesting again. That cuts him a lotta slack in my book. He got his desert AFTER dinner, unlike Fedsicle who built his whole image and aura off of weak competition. Big difference
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
That one may be a step too far.
Let's see:
(comparing by draw tuffness)
1993 > 2003
2004 > 1994
1995 > 2005
1996 = 2008
1997 = 2006
2007 > 1998
1999 = 2009
2012 > 2000

Fred edges this slightly in the last season. So the difference is small/irrelevant.
98 and 07 are fairly similar, Nadal was better than Goran but Pete had to face a deeper draw. I'd probably give 09 a slight edge too, if Scud hadn't retired it'd probably be equal/even in 99's favor.
 

fundrazer

Legend
because Djoker spent the 8 years prior to 2015 breaking through Federer and Nadal's duopoly on tennis and making the sport interesting again. That cuts him a lotta slack in my book. He got his desert AFTER dinner, unlike Fedsicle who built his whole image and aura off of weak competition. Big difference
Funny typo. We could definitely describe the current landscape as a desert, void of any young all time greats.

How many days will your account survive?
 
98 and 07 are fairly similar, Nadal was better than Goran but Pete had to face a deeper draw. I'd probably give 09 a slight edge too, if Scud hadn't retired it'd probably be equal/even in 99's favor.
I'm happy for your unwavering self-confidence. :'|

I can definitely see '99 Sampras beating '09 Roddick in straights with his clutchness.
 

JaoSousa

Hall of Fame
Main rival on clay: Nadal (In arguably his best years on clay)
Main rivals on grass: (Nadal again in 2 of his 3 best years on grass, and Roddick, who was an exceptional player on grass)
Main rivals on HC: (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal at the very end. All decent players)

So essentially Fed had to beat Nadal in literally every single M1000 clay final, go up against a peak Rafa on grass, and face some formiddable opponents on HC as well from 2003-2010.
 

Eren

Professional
That one may be a step too far.
Let's see:
(comparing by draw tuffness)
1993 > 2003
2004 > 1994
1995 > 2005
1996 = 2008
1997 = 2006
2007 > 1998
1999 = 2009
2012 > 2000

Fred edges this slightly in the last season. So the difference is small/irrelevant.
Depends on how you look at it. Djokovic, Nadal, Murray are all better grass courters than anyone Sampras faced and Fedr beat those guys to get some of his Wimbledons. Sampras had no one close to any of the aforementioned players on grass to deal with.

In my book, Sampras isn't the best on grass, far from the best on HC and was absolutely pathetic on clay. Where does that leave him in the GOAT discussion? Nowhere to be found. Obviously an ATG, just a significant step below Big3.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Press X to doubt.

Expect Agassi to play better against anyone other than Sampras.

The first set appears crucial; whoever takes it is a strong favourite to take the match.
You expect Agassi to play as well as 09 Fed? Or you think he has a favourable match-up?
 
Depends on how you look at it. Djokovic, Nadal, Murray are all better grass courters than anyone Sampras faced and Fedr beat those guys to get some of his Wimbledons. Sampras had no one close to any of the aforementioned players on grass to deal with.

In my book, Sampras isn't the best on grass, far from the best on HC and was absolutely pathetic on clay. Where does that leave him in the GOAT discussion? Nowhere to be found. Obviously an ATG, just a significant step below Big3.
Bad reasoning.
 

Eren

Professional
Bad reasoning.
Your opinion. I might phrase it as, Federer had it tougher in the end of his Wimbledon campaigns. I wasn't trying to refer to the draw as a whole because for players like Sampras and Federer, the first week of Wimbledon mostly is practice lol.
 
You expect Agassi to play as well as 09 Fed? Or you think he has a favourable match-up?
I think the serve-return balance shifting would help Agassi. He'd return better than Botterer and serve worse, but the former should be more significant in this match. The 09 final going on for that long was an anomaly, could've easily been a routine straight-set win for Federer if a few points went differently. It would be unlikely for Roddick to clutch out a win over Agassi the way he almost did it against Federer, because it's just an unlikely showing of clutchness.
 
Your opinion. I might phrase it as, Federer had it tougher in the end of his Wimbledon campaigns. I wasn't trying to refer to the draw as a whole because for players like Sampras and Federer, the first week of Wimbledon mostly is practice lol.
Don't rate level by titles. Especially not in Murray's case lol.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Main rival on clay: Nadal (In arguably his best years on clay)
Main rivals on grass: (Nadal again in 2 of his 3 best years on grass, and Roddick, who was an exceptional player on grass)
Main rivals on HC: (Hewitt, Roddick, Safin, Nadal at the very end. All decent players)

So essentially Fed had to beat Nadal in literally every single M1000 clay final, go up against a peak Rafa on grass, and face some formiddable opponents on HC as well from 2003-2010.
Don't forget Djokovic on HC in 2007.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I think the serve-return balance shifting would help Agassi. He'd return better than Botterer and serve worse, but the former should be more significant in this match. The 09 final going on for that long was an anomaly, could've easily been a routine straight-set win for Federer if a few points went differently. It would be unlikely for Roddick to clutch out a win over Agassi the way he almost did it against Federer, because it's just an unlikely showing of clutchness.
I hestitate to call it an anomaly because he outclutched Murray as well - notably a guy with an exceptional return. Sampras served better than Roddick did, but the difference between Fed's serve and Agassi's is way bigger. Just feels wrong to me to give Agassi this much credit when he only served at 43% and was pretty ineffective against an admittedly glorious Pete, where as Federer wasn't as good as Sampras was but still played a clearly better match than Agassi did and Roddick took him to the wire...
 
I hestitate to call it an anomaly because he outclutched Murray as well - notably a guy with an exceptional return. Sampras served better than Roddick did, but the difference between Fed's serve and Agassi's is way bigger. Just feels wrong to me to give Agassi this much credit when he only served at 43% and was pretty ineffective against an admittedly glorious Pete, where as Federer wasn't as good as Sampras was but still played a clearly better match than Agassi did and Roddick took him to the wire...
I already alluded to the importance of the first set. Roddick probably goes down in straights if Federer converts BP at 5-5 and serves the first set out. Agassi, even if he broke at 3-3 and held serve twice to take the set, probably goes down in four sets anyway, but it'd be a much better match then. And who takes the first set between Roddick and Agassi is mental as much as technical so I dunno, not trusting either's mental strength implicitly.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
What's so wrong with Fed's competition anyway?

If Djokovic hadn't been so generous against Murray and Stan, his competition would have been one sided too outside Fedal.
 

R1FF

Professional
Because Peak Federer was that much better than the rest of the competition especially Roddick.

Even as someone who considered themselves a Nadal fan when he went up against Federer, I cannot deny that Federer at his peak was a top 3 player ever.

Let's be honest, how many people think that Sampras would have won all of those Wimbledon titles going up against prime Federer?

2006 Federer was the most dominant season ever in my opinion with Mac 1984 season coming in second.
I must be a minority in that I think Fed has gotten better with time. His late prime or maybe just post prime versus late Sampras is on my all time wish list.

As for lacking a rival tho... what about Nadal? Or is this excluded because their prime years didnt align?
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I already alluded to the importance of the first set. Roddick probably goes down in straights if Federer converts BP at 5-5 and serves the first set out. Agassi, even if he broke at 3-3 and held serve twice to take the set, probably goes down in four sets anyway, but it'd be a much better match then. And who takes the first set between Roddick and Agassi is mental as much as technical so I dunno, not trusting either's mental strength implicitly.
OK fair enough.
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
I think the serve-return balance shifting would help Agassi. He'd return better than Botterer and serve worse, but the former should be more significant in this match. The 09 final going on for that long was an anomaly, could've easily been a routine straight-set win for Federer if a few points went differently. It would be unlikely for Roddick to clutch out a win over Agassi the way he almost did it against Federer, because it's just an unlikely showing of clutchness.
Federer also would have been down 2-0 if he hadn't dug out that miraculous half volley, and the BH volley would never have happened. Margins are small on grass with big serves.

Anyways, Agassi vs Roddick is an interesting discussion, but Roddick put forward a more gutsy and better performance by virtue of his serve alone so as competition I'd definitely give him the nod.
 
Federer also would have been down 2-0 if he hadn't dug out that miraculous half volley, and the BH volley would never have happened. Margins are small on grass with big serves.

Anyways, Agassi vs Roddick is an interesting discussion, but Roddick put forward a more gutsy and better performance by virtue of his serve alone so as competition I'd definitely give him the nod.
Still Pete didn't break outside of his godpras stint until AA gave up at 5-5 in the third (annoying fail, should've been TB not that it would've changed anything).
 

metsman

G.O.A.T.
Still Pete didn't break outside of his godpras stint until AA gave up at 5-5 in the third (annoying fail, should've been TB not that it would've changed anything).
Well the godpras stint took care of 2 breaks so that's more than enough.

Yeah the 5-5 game was terrible. So was the 15-14 game but that's a tad more understandable (plus shadows) lol.
 

Gazelle

Legend
Federer is just the most insanely talented player ever. It required two ATG's 5/6 year younger than him to stop him from wrapping up everything in sight.

Only player who could have damaged Federer if he had been same generation would have been Nadal, due to strong match-up advantage. Other ATG's can be happy they weren't same generation as Fed. Roddick/Hewitt didn't have that fortune.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
A. Roddick was a one-dimensional ball basher. He didn't have the skill to dominate any era, and Federer showed him that tennis is about more than just power. Hewitt, the 2nd-biggest rival in his generation, had the beginnings of an ATG career but his game was only effective in an era of serve-and-volleyers. Once Fed started outdueling him from the baseline, it was game over. Maybe it wasn't quite the weak era that people like to label it as, but it wasn't the strongest either - at least matchup-wise, his rivals had nothing on him.
B. Federer was just that good. No one in tennis history has dominated tennis so thoroughly and for such a long duration as Federer in his prime. He was about as close to consistently unbeatable (outside of clay, of course) as you could get. He would've dominated just about anyone in that period not named Rafael Nadal.
Hewitt could stay with Fed on the ground at times well but he was not powerful enough to cause damage constantly.
 

RS

Hall of Fame
Federer is just the most insanely talented player ever. It required two ATG's 5/6 year younger than him to stop him from wrapping up everything in sight.

Only player who could have damaged Federer if he had been same generation would have been Nadal, due to strong match-up advantage. Other ATG's can be happy they weren't same generation as Fed. Roddick/Hewitt didn't have that fortune.
If Djokovic was in Federer gen he could have held his own. He is a top tier ATG just like Federer.
 

Eren

Professional
Federer is just the most insanely talented player ever. It required two ATG's 5/6 year younger than him to stop him from wrapping up everything in sight.

Only player who could have damaged Federer if he had been same generation would have been Nadal, due to strong match-up advantage. Other ATG's can be happy they weren't same generation as Fed. Roddick/Hewitt didn't have that fortune.
Sampras himself got a taste of it at Wimbledon of all places ;)
 
Borg, Mac, Lendl, PETE, Nole, Rafa all had great rivalries against fellow ATGs with tense scorelines in their primes:
Borg/Mac: 7-7
Lendl/Mac: 21-15
PETE/'Dre: 20-14
Nole-Rafa: 29-26


Now as we all know, Federer faced Roddick more than anyone during his "Prime" years:
Fed/Roddick: 21-3

Since Roger played such great competition to rack up slams, my simple question is: why was such a great competitor as Roddick unable to defeat Federer more than 3 times over 11 years?
Feddy Teddy is an Opportunistic Lucky Roller. That's how it is. Have to accept that :alien:
 

fedfan08

Professional
Well, after 2004 he stopped being Federer's biggest rival too. Enter the new generation, which is the strongest in the open era yet Federer still kept winning Slams into his 30's against them.
If you’re referring to the current generation that Nadal and Djokovic are also facing all I have to say is:

 

fedfan08

Professional
What’s your IQ? Do you realise all of Roddick’s matches vs Agassi were between 2000 and 2003, when Agassi was still playing very well, near prime level? Bar one match played in 2004, which btw Agassi was no slouch, probably on par with 95/96 Becker. Go check out USO QF match 2001 Sampras-Agassi, and tell me that’s nowhere near prime ATG level. So yeah, that’s no shame in baby Roddick losing to that version of AA.
Watch Agassi and Roddick in Cincy 2004. They were both crushing it. This was before Roddick became a pusher from the baseline.

 

fedfan08

Professional
Can someone name Nadal’s biggest rival not named Federer or Djokovic? Can they name Djokovic’s biggest rival not named Federer or Nadal?
 

fedfan08

Professional
how surprising that Roger won less slams vs peak Djokodal. Perhaps the 6 years difference in age has something to do with it?
let's better check the opposition Djokodal had to face since reaching their prime.
who is a stronger opposition: Roddick, Safin, Nalbandian or Thiem, Zverev, Tsitsipas?
Wait is this a serious question?
 
Top