Wilander "You have to say that the era Federer dominated was the worst of all time"

[Chanwan]

Peak Federer going into 2006 Wimbledon had the following against Nadal:

4 losses in 2006, all to Nadal
A 1-6 head-to-head against Nadal

And 6-8 at the end of 2007 -> with 5-2 off clay.

 

[chjtennis]

Peak Federer going into 2006 Wimbledon had the following against Nadal:

4 losses in 2006, all to Nadal
A 1-6 head-to-head against Nadal

He was saying off clay.

 

[shakes1975]

I disagree. If people had been so certain on the outcome the entire match, I doubt it would have been dubbed as the best match ever.

As for who Nadal beat on hard:
2004: Fed, Sjeng Schalken (ranked 16), Jiri Novak (ranked 14), Ivanisevic. Plus Karlovic and Stepanek (both on carpet).

2005:
First HC Masters win: Carlos Moya, Ricardo Mello, Sebastien Grosjean, Mariano Puerta, Paul-Henri Mathieu, Andre Agassi (USA)
Second win (Madrid): Robredo, Stepanek, Ginepri, Ljubicic - all ranked between 12-21

Also, Schuettler, Fernando Verdasco, Ivan Ljubicic, Thomas Johansson David Ferrer, Coria, Ferrero.

And he was leading finalist Hewitt 2-1 in sets at the Australian only to lose the fourth in a TB and then the fifth. And Federer 2-0 and a break before losing the third set TB and subsequently the match.

Out of all these, the only good wins were against Ljubicic and Agassi. The rest like Moya, Ferrer, Verdasco, Coria, Puerta etc. were essentially all clay court type players like Nadal himself. Don't just go by ranking. And these were not best-of-5 either except for the one against Fed in 2005 Miami.

He gave a good fight to Fed in 2005 Miami F, but he didn't have a tough road to the F.

2006 (two years before he got good on HC according to you):
Davydenko, Robredo, Haas, Fish (all indoor HC even!), Philippoussis, Haas (again), Jiri Novak, Baghdatis, Grosjean, Fish, Matthieu, Henman, Rochus, Simon, Federer.

2007: Djokovic, Baghadis, Wawrinka, Youshny, Gasquet, Murray, Bagdhatis, Tsonga, Safin, Matthieu, Delpo, Roddick, Djokovic, Ferrero, Verdasco, Bagdhatis, Kohlschreiber, Youshny, Murray.

I say, starting with Fed in 2004 and especially the amount of good players, he beat in 2005, he had plenty of talent to compete well in the HC slams before 2008.

And yes, a slam is different from a masters. But Nadal has always been good in best of five, even at a very young age. So the results from the Masters could, and perhaps should, have translated into more HC slam semis and the like earlier.

Is it just a coincidence then that he didn't do well at the USO all those yrs ? He was losing to Blake and Berdych on HC. in that period.

 

[abmk]

How about Rome 2006 ? That was during his prime and peak, right ? Fed was leading 4-1 in the 5th set, was also ahead in the t/b with MPs.

on clay ... I thought we were talking about non-clay matches

They are two great players, so the matches will be close. But it's also almost certain that Nadal usually pulls those matches out. Fed lacks confidence against his arch rival, Nadal. That's sad for a GOAT.

and yet here miami 2005 and wimbledon 2007 get neglected so easily or pushed away as if they are nothing ... see below ...

Nadal was still a newbie in this match and he choked, pure and simple. Any other yr, he would've won it.

....

2008 Wim - Fed lost in 5
2009 AO - Fed lost in 5.

I don't accept this peak/prime in 2009. 2010, I can see Fed being past his peak/prime, but not in 2009.

It's ironical that you don't give Nadal the same leeway. You guys put Nadal as peak right from 2005, even though his career graph clearly showed that he was a clay courter who improved on other surfaces between 2007-2009.

I'm not saying nadal was at his peak in 2005-06.

2007 wimbledon final was arguably his best performance on grass . so that is definitely a part of his peak.

I can't think of one victory where sampras battled a performance like that at wimbledon and won.

there is a difference b/w prime and peak

federer's peak was from 2004-07. prime was from ~ 2004-09 ....

No, I never said Nadal didn't struggle against Fed off clay. He did, but he also still won most of their F's outdoors once he was at his peak.

Not best-of-5 matches.

so in 2011, 2012, at the same age when sampras was losing left-right to nobodies, you favor federer vs nadal in a best of 5 ... good to know !

 

[Chanwan]

Out of all these, the only good wins were against Ljubicic and Agassi. The rest like Moya, Ferrer, Verdasco, Coria, Puerta etc. were essentially all clay court type players like Nadal himself. Don't just go by ranking. And these were not best-of-5 either except for the one against Fed in 2005 Miami.

He gave a good fight to Fed in 2005 Miami F, but he didn't have a tough road to the F.

Is it just a coincidence then that he didn't do well at the USO all those yrs ? He was losing to Blake and Berdych on HC. in that period.

Is it just a coincidence that he nearly won three HC Masters in 2005?
Ferrer is very good on HC and has beaten Nadal on HC even after Nadal became the best player in the world. Stepanek is certainly also very good. And Haas. And many of the others are quite decent.

Why did he lose in Aus and the US Open to Hewitt and Roddick in 2004, Hewitt and Blake in 2005, Youshny in 2006 (US), Gonzales and Ferrer in 2007 and Tsonga and Murray in 2008 (and no, he did not lose to Berdych in a HC slam).

2004 - Hewitt and Roddick were clearly simply better players.
2005 - Hewitt was still a tough customer and came back from 1-2 in sets - and went all the way to the final, beating Nalby and Roddick on the way. Still, Nadal had the potential to win the match. Blake is the type of opponent that on his day can hit Nadal off the court - he did just that this day.
2006 - Youshny, don't remember the match, so I don't have an answer - from the match stats, I can see that he only converted 2 out of 11 BP's, whereas Youshny took four out of 9. And won a most likely crucial TB in the third, 7-5. Had that TB gone the other way, who is to say, Nadal wouldn't have been favored going forward for a spot in the semi?
2007: Gonzales, see Blake above - in the zone. Ferrer - Ferrer has beaten Nadal numerous times on HC. But I've also heard people saying Nadal had a minor injury?
2008: Tsonga, no explanation needed, better tennis have seldom been performed, Murray - more than capable of beating Nadal on HC + Nadal had a long stretch of success that was bound to end somewhere. The highest ranked played he beat on the way to those to semis? Matthieu, ranked 25th.

Now had Nadal lost that semi to Verdasco in 2009, it would simply just have been another Blake, Gonzales, Tsonga-moment.

All together, I say the reason for Nadal's lack of success in slam HC's up until 2008-2009 is a primarily running into a hot player/not having as easy draws as he had in 2008 - he's breakthrough year in the HC slams if you will. The other years, 2005-2007, he mostly ran into opponents who, on their day, could take him out. He didn't meet such opponents in 2008 (before the semis) and in 2009, he won one of those matches, he very well could have lost (or two, given he also won a close final). Delpo's beating of him in the 2009 US final was another instance of a very, very hot player (albeit aided by abdominal injury for Nadal - but I don't anything could have changed the outcome against Delpo that day).

The only result that really stands out to me is the loss to Youshny in 2006. If anyone remembers the match, I would be glad to hear. I've only analyzed it from the stats above.

p.s. I'm not saying that Nadal was as good as HC in 2005-2007 as he was in 2010. Just that we was more than good enough to make it deeper in the HC slams than he actually did.
I don't think that Nadal of 2008 would necessarily have beaten Blake of 2005, Gonzales of 2007. And that the 2009 Aus Open version would necessarily have beaten Tsonga of 2008 or Gonzales of 2007.

Hot, aggressive players can hit Nadal off court on their day. Not everyday, not most days. But on their day.

 

[NatF]

Is it just a coincidence that he nearly won three HC Masters in 2005?
Ferrer is very good on HC and has beaten Nadal on HC even after Nadal became the best player in the world. Stepanek is certainly also very good. And Haas. And many of the others are quite decent.

Why did he lose in Aus and the US Open to Hewitt and Roddick in 2004, Hewitt and Blake in 2005, Youshny in 2006 (US), Gonzales and Ferrer in 2007 and Tsonga and Murray in 2008 (and no, he did not lose to Berdych in a HC slam).

2004 - Hewitt and Roddick were clearly simply better players.
2005 - Hewitt was still a tough customer and came back from 1-2 in sets - and went all the way to the final, beating Nalby and Roddick on the way. Still, Nadal had the potential to win the match. Blake is the type of opponent that on his day can hit Nadal off the court - he did just that this day.
2006 - Youshny, don't remember the match, so I don't have an answer - from the match stats, I can see that he only converted 2 out of 11 BP's, whereas Youshny took four out of 9. And won a most likely crucial TB in the third, 7-5. Had that TB gone the other way, who is to say, Nadal wouldn't have been favored going forward for a spot in the semi?
2007: Gonzales, see Blake above - in the zone. Ferrer - Ferrer has beaten Nadal numerous times on HC. But I've also heard people saying Nadal had a minor injury?
2008: Tsonga, no explanation needed, better tennis have seldom been performed, Murray - more than capable of beating Nadal on HC + Nadal had a long stretch of success that was bound to end somewhere. The highest ranked played he beat on the way to those to semis? Matthieu, ranked 25th.

Now had Nadal lost that semi to Verdasco in 2009, it would simply just have been another Blake, Gonzales, Tsonga-moment.

All together, I say the reason for Nadal's lack of success in slam HC's up until 2008-2009 is a primarily running into a hot player/not having as easy draws as he had in 2008 - he's breakthrough year in the HC slams if you will. The other years, 2005-2007, he mostly ran into opponents who, on their day, could take him out. He didn't meet such opponents in 2008 (before the semis) and in 2009, he won one of those matches, he very well could have lost (or two, given he also won a close final). Delpo's beating of him in the 2009 US final was another instance of a very, very hot player (albeit aided by abdominal injury for Nadal - but I don't anything could have changed the outcome against Delpo that day).

The only result that really stands out to me is the loss to Youshny in 2006. If anyone remembers the match, I would be glad to hear. I've only analyzed it from the stats above.

p.s. I'm not saying that Nadal was as good as HC in 2005-2007 as he was in 2010. Just that we was more than good enough to make it deeper in the HC slams than he actually did.
I don't think that Nadal of 2008 would necessarily have beaten Blake of 2005, Gonzales of 2007. And that the 2009 Aus Open version would necessarily have beaten Tsonga of 2008 or Gonzales of 2007.

Hot, aggressive players can hit Nadal off court on their day. Not everyday, not most days. But on their day.

I agree with this. As for Youzhny, I only remember his semi final versus Roddick. He was playing very well for most of the match. Youzhny seemed to match up well with Nadal even up till the beginning of 2008 where he gave Nadal his worst ever defeat at Chennai, 6-0 6-1.

 

[Chanwan]

I agree with this. As for Youzhny, I only remember his semi final versus Roddick. He was playing very well for most of the match. Youzhny seemed to match up well with Nadal even up till the beginning of 2008 where he gave Nadal his worst ever defeat at Chennai, 6-0 6-1.

I actually started a thread on this once. I've moved my post over to there - join the discussion if you want - that includes you Shakes75

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?p=7934876&posted=1#post7934876

 

[Start da Game]

you guys complicate what should be very simple and straightforward thing to understand......the top 5 of 2004-07 was pathetic no matter how you spin it......there is no running away from it for fedlovers......

I agree with this. As for Youzhny, I only remember his semi final versus Roddick. He was playing very well for most of the match. Youzhny seemed to match up well with Nadal even up till the beginning of 2008 where he gave Nadal his worst ever defeat at Chennai, 6-0 6-1.

you are not fooling anybody......nadal should have lost to moya in the semis but escaped somehow in a 4 hour brutal contest......he showed up totally jaded and empty the next day and lost 0, 1 to youzhny......youzhny himself said after the final "that is not the nadal we usually see on the court, understandable after such a tough semis"......

 

[NatF]

you guys complicate what should be very simple and straightforward thing to understand......the top 5 of 2004-07 was pathetic no matter how you spin it......there is no running away from it for fedlovers......



you are not fooling anybody......nadal should have lost to moya in the semis but escaped somehow in a 4 hour brutal contest......he showed up totally jaded and empty the next day and lost 0, 1 to youzhny......youzhny himself said after the final "that is not the nadal we usually see on the court, understandable after such a tough semis"......

Love and one is a crazy scoreline, give Youzhny some credit.

Edit: Scratch that been watching abit of the match, Nadal was crap...

 

[Start da Game]

All together, I say the reason for Nadal's lack of success in slam HC's up until 2008-2009 is a primarily running into a hot player/not having as easy draws as he had in 2008 - he's breakthrough year in the HC slams if you will. The other years, 2005-2007, he mostly ran into opponents who, on their day, could take him out. He didn't meet such opponents in 2008 (before the semis) and in 2009, he won one of those matches, he very well could have lost (or two, given he also won a close final). Delpo's beating of him in the 2009 US final was another instance of a very, very hot player (albeit aided by abdominal injury for Nadal - but I don't anything could have changed the outcome against Delpo that day).

The only result that really stands out to me is the loss to Youshny in 2006. If anyone remembers the match, I would be glad to hear. I've only analyzed it from the stats above.

p.s. I'm not saying that Nadal was as good as HC in 2005-2007 as he was in 2010. Just that we was more than good enough to make it deeper in the HC slams than he actually did.
I don't think that Nadal of 2008 would necessarily have beaten Blake of 2005, Gonzales of 2007. And that the 2009 Aus Open version would necessarily have beaten Tsonga of 2008 or Gonzales of 2007.

Hot, aggressive players can hit Nadal off court on their day. Not everyday, not most days. But on their day.

lol.....nadal chewed and spitted gonzalez in best of 5 olympics final 2008 on the fastest hardcourt out there......he blasted him again in AO 2009 along with haas and just bombarded youzhny out of us open 2010......

from 2008 he started taking it to federer, djokovic and murray on all types of hardcourts and getting the better of them half the times......who the hell are gonzalez, youzhny, blake?

 

[chandu612]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...dal-goat-talk-unfairly-dismisses-pete-sampras

http://www.insidetennis.com/2011/01/sampras-my-game-hold-generation/

The article talks about the Greatness of Pete Sampras, which people seem to forget, & dismiss him when having GOAT debates!


The article fairly ends with "The G.O.A.T. argument is intriguing conversation for tennis fans, provided it is academic and without name calling. Yet, to claim it has anything to do with reality is pure fantasy."

I thought weak era was a myth. Wilander is saying this now. Faceplam fed fanatics.

 

[mike danny]

I thought weak era was a myth. Wilander is saying this now. Faceplam fed fanatics.

http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9802063/roger-federer-best-generation-rod-laver-says

And here is what laver said:

"When I look at Federer, with what he's accomplished, against the competition that he's accomplished it with, I'd have to say I would think that Roger is the greatest player,'' Laver said.

I thought Fed was not supposed to be the GOAT.

facepalm nadal fanatics

 

[shakes1975]

p.s. I'm not saying that Nadal was as good as HC in 2005-2007 as he was in 2010.

Thank you !! That's all I'm saying. Essentially, Nadal improved or had to improve to win slams on HC and grass.

I don't think that Nadal of 2008 would necessarily have beaten Blake of 2005, Gonzales of 2007. And that the 2009 Aus Open version would necessarily have beaten Tsonga of 2008 or Gonzales of 2007.

Hot, aggressive players can hit Nadal off court on their day. Not everyday, not most days. But on their day.

Sure, aggressive players can hit Nadal off court on their day (they can even hit Fed off court on their day), but I don't believe that suddenly after 2008 Nadal stopped running into players who are on their day at the USO.

The bottom line is Nadal improved and had to improve to win slams on HC.

Nadal of 2009-2010 wouldn't have lost to Hewitt or Blake or Gonzalez in 2007. I agree about Tsonga of 2008, though.

 

[TheTruth]

I thought weak era was a myth. Wilander is saying this now. Faceplam fed fanatics.

It is no myth.

 

[NatF]

It is no myth.

Yeah it is. I have yet to see any objective evidence that the competition is any better now.

 

[Povl Carstensen]

I thought weak era was a myth.

Perhaps you were right. Don't be so hard on yourself.

 

[TheTruth]

Yeah it is. I have yet to see any objective evidence that the competition is any better now.

I said it in the midst of the era and my opinion has never wavered.

 

[NatF]

I said it in the midst of the era and my opinion has never wavered.

Is that based on the achievements of the players then or level of play or what though? Because it would be very easy to list a tons of matches where guys Federer was playing played at a level atleast as high as anything Djokovic has displayed outside of the AO the last couple of years...

 

[Talker]

I don't get Wilander at all.
He's been saying some pretty controversial things about Federer for awhile now.
I'm sure he could find some good things to say but he doesn't.

Hard to say if he's got a point.
Fed was able to take #1 and a Wimbledon title as late as last year.

Both Nadal and Djokovic dropped off a little and Fed wasn't great as the old days but still pretty good at that time.

If Fed could take #1 with diminished skills then what strength does this ERA have?

Well, he has a view like most so is entitled to his say.

 

[TheTruth]

Is that based on the achievements of the players then or level of play or what though? Because it would be very easy to list a tons of matches where guys Federer was playing played at a level atleast as high as anything Djokovic has displayed outside of the AO the last couple of years...

It is based on the mentality of the players at that time, not on their actual tennis talent.

During that period opponents, his own competition, were saying it wasn't a big deal to lose to Federer. They were acting like fans rather than adversaries.

They could not be expected to fight against Federer in a match, they acquiesced before they even came onto court.

I have never seen such an era in tennis history.

Now, here's the rub, many people think that the weak era argument diminishes Federer's talent, or standing, but that's not the case. Federer is still a great player and may have won even if those guys had competed to their fullest potential.

But the weak era is apart from Federer even though he participated in it, it's not his fault that it was a transitional period and the talents of the day, with the experience were either injured, MIA, or too old to be a factor.

 

[NatF]

It is based on the mentality of the players at that time, not on their actual tennis talent.

During that period opponents, his own competition, were saying it wasn't a big deal to lose to Federer. They were acting like fans rather than adversaries.

They could not be expected to fight against Federer in a match, they acquiesced before they even came onto court.

I have never seen such an era in tennis history.

Now, here's the rub, many people think that the weak era argument diminishes Federer's talent, or standing, but that's not the case. Federer is still a great player and may have won even if those guys had competed to their fullest potential.

But the weak era is apart from Federer even though he participated in it, it's not his fault that it was a transitional period and the talents of the day, with the experience were either injured, MIA, or too old to be a factor.

Mentality wise I can what you're saying when talking about Blake or Davydenko perhaps even Roddick on some occasions (Wim 05 and AO 07). But in general I think there were some great performances against Federer.

I don't think this era is any better in that regard. Berdych has no belief against Rafa and Ferrer is the #3/#4 guy and nothing more than a punch bag at the slam level. The only player other than the top 4 who has any belief is Del Potro (who is really inconsistant). Even amongst the top 4 guys only Djokovic has any belief against Nadal on clay but seemingly has none against Murray on grass etc...Mental issues between top players are pretty common.

If you look at Nadal's draw this USO and in say 2010 did you see any belief there? Even Djokovic capitulated in the 4th set this year. The difference between the era's is non existant IMO.

As for it being a transitional period. I completely disagree. A transition between what to what exactly? Sampras was essentially the sole dominant force in the 90's, so Federer being the dominant force in the 00's was keeping with tradition. There's been no real dominant player since so I can't see how Federer's era was transitional.

 

[TheTruth]

Mentality wise I can what you're saying when talking about Blake or Davydenko perhaps even Roddick on some occasions (Wim 05 and AO 07). But in general I think there were some great performances against Federer.

I suppose there were some, Safin, Nalbandian.

I don't think this era is any better in that regard.

I'd say it is shaping up to be that way, but it wasn't at first. All the guys with promise for some reason or the other didn't deliver. Remember when people thought Tsonga was going to deliver, del Potro (due to injuries), Soderling (mono), and people had high hopes for Gasquet and Monfils? But, I can kind of understand it, because back then the belief was that they couldn't get through Federer, now they have to get through Nadal, Nole, Murray & Federer (who can still do considerable damage to those outside of the big three). Now, it really is an impenetrable wall, who do we know that can get through all four?


Berdych has no belief against Rafa and Ferrer is the #3/#4 guy and nothing more than a punch bag at the slam level. The only player other than the top 4 who has any belief is Del Potro (who is really inconsistant). Even amongst the top 4 guys only Djokovic has any belief against Nadal on clay but seemingly has none against Murray on grass etc...Mental issues between top players are pretty common.

Berdych does try but his movement isn't good enough. Ferrer, imo, is a journeyman no matter how much they call him a pit bull. The rest I agree with.

If you look at Nadal's draw this USO and in say 2010 did you see any belief there? Even Djokovic capitulated in the 4th set this year. The difference between the era's is non existant IMO.

I don't remember the draws from either, TBH. I disagree as I previously explained.

As for it being a transitional period. I completely disagree. A transition between what to what exactly? Sampras was essentially the sole dominant force in the 90's, so Federer being the dominant force in the 00's was keeping with tradition. There's been no real dominant player since so I can't see how Federer's era was transitional.

The transition was who would take over in Pete's absence, but Hewitt and Ferrero got sick and never returned to their previous levels. Tommy was in and out of the tour, Marat was MIA, and Agassi was old. The transitional period was from 00-03 when Federer emerged and then took over the tour. Those who would next become a factor were Nole, Rafa, and Murray, but they were going through growing pains and gaining experience on the tour.

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

The transition was who would take over in Pete's absence, but Hewitt and Ferrero got sick and never returned to their previous levels. Tommy was in and out of the tour, Marat was MIA, and Agassi was old. The transitional period was from 00-03 when Federer emerged and then took over the tour. Those who would next become a factor were Nole, Rafa, and Murray, but they were going through growing pains and gaining experience on the tour.

In the case of Nadal, Federer suffered those growing pains.

 

[LazyNinja19]

In the case of Nadal, Federer suffered those growing pains.

Yea, even a Toddler Nadal was giving Federer pain in those crawling years of his :lol:

 

[Forehand Of Doom]

Yea, even a Toddler Nadal was giving Federer pain in those crawling years of his :lol:

Nice to see you back, bro.

LOL Luigi avatar.

 

[LazyNinja19]

Nice to see you back, bro.

LOL Luigi avatar.

Thanks man. Good to be back here among the company of fellow humble fans of the Bull!

I'm sure you'll like my sig. too

 

[Tony48]

Another thing Bobby Jr. isn't realizing is that Nadal is 5 years younger than Fed. It is only natural that he would start to improve as he got older.

LMAO why was Clarky banned?

I thought it sounded rather anti-jinxless around here.

 

[mike danny]

Some more stupid stuff said by Mats

 

[mike danny]

Wilander has been the biggest critic of Federer for decades, even that guy Pat Cash used to say stuffs like these for Roger. Can't believe former tennis greats have opposed him so directly in the past, these sort of comments don't look very good coming from them.

I have seen Wilander praise Federer during match commentary, so it is indeed weird.

Especially as his statement in this thread is completely wrong.

 

[The_Order]

I have seen Wilander praise Federer during match commentary, so it is indeed weird.

Especially as his statement in this thread is completely wrong.

You can praise Federer whilst also calling out the obvious...

 

[mike danny]

When Federer was dominating in his peak, Wilander was questioning Roger's status in 06.

I even remember reading Kuerten bashing Roger at that time, Kuerten talked of a vacuum after the downfall of Sampras where he compared that to the vacuum in F1 after the death of Aryton Senna which allowed Michael Schumacher to take control of F1. Weak era theories have always been popular.

Wilander was questioning Fed's status in 2006 because of Nadal. The infamous Federer has no balls against Nadal comment.

As for Kuerten's comment, he is entitled to his opinion and I agree that Fed's period wasn't among the strong ones, but Sampras also had a weak era at that time and didn't dominate it.

 

[TearTheRoofOff]

Wow, so basically Wilander is being disrespectful to Federer AND Hewitt, Roddick, and Nalbandian. Great guy.

Not to mention the argument doesn't hold up. "Federer won almost all the tournaments, so his era was weak!" Really? He was supposed to win almost all the grand slams AND have competitors than won the same tournaments? Nonsensical.

Yeah, the zero sum aspect of it all tends to nuke people's brains on the regular. That the instrumental driver of Fedr's success was his brilliance couldn't really have been presented any more clearly by his performances.

 

[Roubaixcomp]

Wilander was questioning Fed's status in 2006 because of Nadal. The infamous Federer has no balls against Nadal comment.

As for Kuerten's comment, he is entitled to his opinion and I agree that Fed's period wasn't among the strong ones, but Sampras also had a weak era at that time and didn't dominate it.

I have huge respect for Sampras. Easily top 5 of all time. But looking at his era while it was at times the strongest of all time it also looked better than it was. Reasons are:
1. Courier burnt out post 1993 after the Maybe the Moon episode. Courier at his best would have denied Pete a couple of Us Opens I think
2. Edberg who troubled him declined rapidly post 1992
3. Becker was a shadow of his 1980s level.
4. Stich was mercurial but widely inconsistent
5. Agassi was not really a factor consistently until almost a decade after Pete won his first slam. End of 1994 and 1995 Agassi was playing great. Then fell off the map until 1999. Prior to 1995 Courier was a bigger threat to Sampras. As was Chang.
So Sampras had periods of no competition due to his rivals troubles. Roger never really had that as his rivals were always consistently playing well. Hewitt Roddick to start with albeit he was much better than them then his nemesis Rafa. Then Djokovic Andy Stan and Delpo came.
Wilanders comments to have any relevance anyway probably need to me made in the morning after he wakes up and has a strong coffee.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Wilander has been the biggest critic of Federer for decades, even that guy Pat Cash used to say stuffs like these for Roger. Can't believe former tennis greats have opposed him so directly in the past, these sort of comments don't look very good coming from them.

It’s narcissist behavior and an attempt to be relevant. Mac endlessly does the same thing. Wilander can only get attention by making sensational statements about current greats.

Sadly his own (significant) career achievements are forgotten except by tennis fanatics. Mats isn’t getting a headline if he talks about winning the French Open 40 years ago.

 

[Roubaixcomp]

It’s narcissist behavior and an attempt to be relevant. Mac endlessly does the same thing. Wilander can only get attention by making sensational statements about current greats.

Sadly his own (significant) career achievements are forgotten except by tennis fanatics. Mats isn’t getting a headline if he talks about winning the French Open 40 years ago.

Wilander is a shocking pundit and has poor knowledge of the modern game. He offers no insight at all into conditions and how they will suit a players game. Mcenrow is similarly clueless.
Henman is the best analyst. He is the only one who is not bias. Courier is excellent as well. Navratilova is fantastic as is Chris Evert who both have managed to stay in tune with the game. Mcenroe and wilander clearly haven't

 

[mike danny]

A fixed set of rivals and challengers do make people better

But Federer did have a fixed set of rivals in 2004-2005. Those were the guys he was facing all the time to win majors. Some of them declined which created the weakness that predominated 2006. Even then, Nadal showed up in 2006 and then Djokovic in 2007.

 

[NatF]

What Wilander and Pete (at that time) wanted was people to challenge Federer, this would have made Roger win a few titles less (maybe) but Roger would have emerged a much stronger player, in turn this would have also made Roger work more on his game in his peak so that when his peak period ended then he would be with a better position to hold off players who were young and coming up.

What happened was Roger won so much in his peak that as soon as there was some dip in his level the field pounced on him, Wilander believes the 2,3,4,5 were the worst if they are constantly changing and unable to challenge Roger, this is not wrong. A fixed set of rivals and challengers do make people better, this is what Nadal and Novak did to each other, constantly become better and better, the guy below them are still struggling as a result of that.

Nadal and Djokovic were at their best in their early to mid 20's so this idea that they constantly made each other better and better doesn't really track. Federer did have several players with clearly superior h2h's and achievements that he had to overcome in that 03/04 span as well...

 

[mike danny]

Roddick was fit but he wasn't as good a rival as he should have been.

I'd argue on grass he certainly was.

Hewitt was also declining physically and he had no weapons to trouble Roger.

He wasn't declining physically. Had his best slam period in 2004-2005, but Roger kept getting in the way. Let's not forget that Federer did have huge trouble with him before 2004 and he had to find ways to beat him in order to dominate. Same thing against Nalbandian and Agassi.

So this is not the same as having a fixed rival (like Novak/Rafa who had each other). Fixed rivals who are as good as you do matter.

Sure, but how long did that last. Nadal has only scored 2 wins over Djokovic outside of clay in the last 12 years. They've also only played 2 GS matches outside RG since 2013. Clearly he hasn't been too troublesome despite being a fixed rival.

Also Djokovic not having anyone even remotely good coming after him has helped him extend his greatness from just a 7 time slam winner to a 21 time slam winner. He wasn't doing too well until then.

I dare say a fixed rival in place of Hewitt who was as good as Roger would have made very tough for Rafa to break through as well, no way was Nadal being ranked 2 at 19 years of age if such a guy existed with Roger.

Sure, but Rafa wasn't the first teenager to ascent to no.2. Becker before him had done it as well. He was ranked no.2 at the end of 1986 right behind Lendl. And the 80's was considered a strong period. The top 3 was Lendl, Becker and Wilander at that time when Becker was no.2 as a teenager. So he did it despite having another ATG in Wilander after Lendl.

Nadal's 2008 year might also have not happened because even if Roger is down, the other guy would be there to clean up the slams. Rafa-Murray-Novak were extremely talented but the way they all entered the top 4 ranks so quickly at 20-21 was because of Fed's rivals being weak. Novak ranked 3 at 20, Andy ranked 4 at 21, the rise was too quick for them since the field was open.

You got this all wrong. They were able to ascend not because Fed's rivals were weak, but because several of them suffered career ending injuries like Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt, which pretty much cut their primes short after 2005. Roddick himself tinkered with his game after early 2005 which was his own fault.

And besides, why is it so weird for a few guys at 20-21 to become top players? We had lots of them in the past. Don't let the Next Gen being weak cloud your judgement. Zverev at 20 rose to no.3, does that mean Federer and Nadal were weak?

 

[junior74]

Also from Wilander:
"Djokovic may be the best of all time on clay"

 

[NatF]

Yup till 2003 Fed did have bad h2h that he did overcome from there, but how come people who were same aged to Roger were losing in 3-4 sets while Agassi who was 11 years older was the person stretching the young boys to 4-5 sets? What does that say about the era ?

2004 USO -> 11 years older Agassi vs Fed went 5 sets and same aged Hewitt double bageled?

Not every match is played at the same level no? Not sure if you've watched the USO 2004 QF but if you had you'd know there were hurricane like conditions which tends to make playing tennis tricky. The final was simply one of Federer's best ever matches. Agassi had an unusual career path as well and was still playing well on HC at that time. Might as well ask why Djokodal are continuing to dominate the slam events against 10+ year younger opponents, nevermind that in this case they're actually way past their best compared to Federer who was in his prime. Or why Federer has been Djokovic's biggest and most consistent roadblock at Wimbledon over the years etc...

 

[mike danny]

Yup till 2003 Fed did have bad h2h that he did overcome from there, but how come people who were same aged to Roger were losing in 3-4 sets while Agassi who was 11 years older was the person stretching the young boys to 4-5 sets? What does that say about the era ?

2004 USO -> 11 years older Agassi vs Fed went 5 sets and same aged Hewitt double bageled?

You can say the same thing about Djokovic's competition in 2014-2015. Murray and Stan were no threat to an old Fed.

 

[D.Nalby12]

I hope Wilandr is alive to witness current super vacuum era.

 

[The Fedfather]

Wilander has been known to have some of the wildest takes in tennis, but this one is just outright disrespectful and troll-like. How was this man paid to be a pro commentator? Lol

 

[Biotic]

Nadal and Djokovic were at their best in their early to mid 20's so this idea that they constantly made each other better and better doesn't really track. Federer did have several players with clearly superior h2h's and achievements that he had to overcome in that 03/04 span as well...

Djokovic was at his worst in his early 20s.

 

[NatF]

Djokovic was at his worst in his early 20s.

Early to mid yes? I think 24 comes under that. No argument that Djokovic is more on the mid side...

 

[junior74]

Also from Wilander:
"Djokovic may be the best of all time on clay"

I forgot to mention: Wilander said it when Rafa was at his lowest low in 2015 - and a few days later, Djokovic got blown off court by Stan.

 

[Sentinel]

Whatever.

 

[Biotic]

Early to mid yes? I think 24 comes under that. No argument that Djokovic is more on the mid side...

Sure, I guess...

Lots of people would say that Djoko was at his best in his late 20s, and there wouldn't be much wrong with it.

 

[The Fedfather]

Also from Wilander:
"Djokovic may be the best of all time on clay"

It was more like "Djokovic now (2015) might be playing at the highest ever level on clay". The look on McEnroe's face was priceless.

 

[mike danny]

Regarding fitness of Fed's rivals, can we say that they were unprofessional and so they maintained their bodies badly? Dave Nalbandian was actually fat One has to give credit to Roddick, he was actually the fittest of Fed's same aged rivals.

They had bad luck with injuries like Del Potro did. Was Delpo unprofessional?

Agassi reached the final of the US open in 2005 while Nalbandian lost in straight sets, Roddick lost in the 1st round. Why ? At that time 35 year old was like 39 now, yet he is reaching farther than Fed's main rivals... ?

Well, in fairness, Nalby was never considered a main rival for Fed. He was 2nd tier among Fed's contemporaries. Agassi going deeper at that USO than Nalby and Hewitt was also a product of Fed meeting those guys in the quarters and semis, while Agassi was on the opposite side away from Roger.

Besides, mid 30's Agassi reaching 1 slam final is still more acceptable than mid 30's Djokodal winning every slam. 35 wasn't like 39 today by the way. Almost 40 year old Rosewall was reaching slam finals in 1974, even before today's era.

Regarding Djokodal dominating 10+, even Fed did dominate guys 10 years younger like Dimitrov/Raonic and others from that early 90s age group, whats so surprising if Novak'Rafa have their own dominant run since all 3 are GOATs so they are expected to dominate upto 10-11 years? Djokovic is in supreme fitness even at 34-35, he can tire out guys like Tsitsipas/Medvedev who are much younger to him, credit to him.

Nobody rates the Lost Gen anyway. Djokovic tiring out guys a decade younger shows how weak those guys actually are.