NatF
Bionic Poster
kiki is just delusional. One of those everything was better in my day kind of people.
Roddick on fast hc and grass had a high peak level, the fact he could take Federer to the limit on grass twice says enough.
With Each Year, I marvel at Federer's 11 Slams in 4 Years
- Thread starter McEnroeisanartist
- Start date
kiki is just delusional. One of those everything was better in my day kind of people.
Roddick on fast hc and grass had a high peak level, the fact he could take Federer to the limit on grass twice says enough.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
Rosewall was 40 when he reached 2 straight slam finals. And yet nobody bats an eye.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
And LOL at Fed being compared to Emerson. Federer won slams in a much tougher era than Emerson.
Probably everybody from Fed's era would beat Emerson.
Probably everybody from Fed's era would beat Emerson.
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
The double standards...lol
If Nadal was around 1960s, Laver would've kissed his CYGS goodbye.
Last edited by a moderator:
Still friendly
New User
It's not the era that's Emerson's problem. His problem is that he most of the time didn't play the best opponents.
Emerson is probably comparable to Murray. Certainly Murray would have double-figues worth of slams if he was an amateur and Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all played pros and didn't attend the slams.
NatF
Bionic Poster
The height of kiki's hypocrisy is including a clearly pre-prime Borg, Connors etc...as competition when it suites him but shoveling **** on Nadal, Agassi and Djokovic for Federer.
kiki's master thinks Federer is the GOAT - yet apparently he's just enough Emerson :lol:
Either kiki is senile or he's a troll.
kiki's master thinks Federer is the GOAT - yet apparently he's just enough Emerson :lol:
Either kiki is senile or he's a troll.
Fiji
Legend
I concur....
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
Amazing, isn't it? :lol:
Anyone pulling the 'weak era'-nonsense immediately loses the argument imho.
One guy (or two) winning everything in sight for about a decade = 'weak era', as all of the rest of them weren't able to bring it against him/them;
A whole bunch of fellows winning the big prizes = 'weak era', as nobody managed to dominate the field, in other words, all clowns!
Can't have it both ways, eh?
As for Federer, if he won in such a 'weak era', how come he's still #2 about five years after said 'weak era'? All the other guys must be clowns... etc.
kiki
Banned
Stolle is a two timer plus 3 lost W finals - in an era with many grass specialists-
Roddick is a one timer plus 3 lost W finals - in an era with no grass specialist-
kiki
Banned
Amazing, isn't it? :lol:
Anyone pulling the 'weak era'-nonsense immediately loses the argument imho.
One guy (or two) winning everything in sight for about a decade = 'weak era', as all of the rest of them weren't able to bring it against him/them;
A whole bunch of fellows winning the big prizes = 'weak era', as nobody managed to dominate the field, in other words, all clowns!
Can't have it both ways, eh?
As for Federer, if he won in such a 'weak era', how come he's still #2 about five years after said 'weak era'? All the other guys must be clowns... etc.
You can have a tough era as well
One guy dominating over a field with multimajors winners
ergo Rod Laver´s era or Bjorn Borg´s era (Golden Era)
kiki
Banned
kiki
Banned
Nadal wouldn´t have made one single QF at either Forest Hills or Wimbledon
maybe a couple of fourth rounders and...vamos finnish
TheMusicLover
G.O.A.T.
It didn't occur to you that the arguments for a 'tough era' are exactly the same as for a 'weak era', depending on who you're talking to?
Darn, you truly are a lost case.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Did Laver or Borg win in an era 17 majors where his competitors won 14 and 8 majors respectively ?
NatF
Bionic Poster
Kodes would be Radiohead in your analogy. The guy has 8 titles :lol:
Swap Federer for Metreveli in a Wimbledon final and Roddick would be laughing.
kiki
Banned
Having basical consensus that Federer cannot be top tier all time because:
1/ Weak era
2/owned by main generational opponent
that is, two steps down the top ladder, the big question arises
What if, in the context of his era and never playing Nadal in a slam final he wins the Gran Slam?
How would that affect his overall status?
Does it move him one step or two ( thus seating at the right of Laver and on par with Budge?)
Please, elaborate.It is intriguing, ain´t it?
1/ Weak era
2/owned by main generational opponent
that is, two steps down the top ladder, the big question arises
What if, in the context of his era and never playing Nadal in a slam final he wins the Gran Slam?
How would that affect his overall status?
Does it move him one step or two ( thus seating at the right of Laver and on par with Budge?)
Please, elaborate.It is intriguing, ain´t it?
kiki
Banned
Roddick simply didn´t have the guts.
If he plays grass court ( true grass) in the 90´s, at most he plays a couple of semis in his entire career.Simply,not good enough.
NatF
Bionic Poster
He's won Queens on quicker grass 4 times and was undefeated there for 3 years. In the 90's he would be stopped by Sampras but if Courier can make a final Roddick can...
He'd surely do better than Kodes in any era though. Comparing a guy with 8 titles to a guy with 30 says it all - especially considering Kodes won his majors in mostly depleted fields.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
You don't know that.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
The problem is that just because he lost a lot to 1 player doesn't mean he can't handle top opponents or that his era was weak.
Otherwise how do you explain Federer having positive H2H leads over the other best players: Djokovic and Murray?
And weak era cannot be proven.
kiki
Banned
Ashe,Smith,Newcombe,Roche yeah that is poor.
Kodes is a three timer as opposed to Roddick being a one timer
mike danny
Bionic Poster
But it is not Federer's case. Weren't Nadal and Djokovic ranked 2 and 3 at one point in Federer's era? So he did face them.
I think Fed would love to switch ages with Rafa and have absolutely *no* younger generation of all-time greats to worry about at age 29, a retired Nadal who hadn't been a factor off clay in six seasons, and Djoko, who takes three years longer to peak, becomes the favorite to win everything, and still loses 75% of slams.
Maybe Federer would achieve less early on, but much more later on in his career.
Of course, level and style of play are not independent of competitors or court conditions. Maybe homogenization wouldn't have happened until later, the dynamics of rivalries would play out differently, and all sorts of different stuff happens. But if anything, it appears Fed has missed out on just the right time to take advantage of extended peaks and a subsequent gap in young talent.
Maybe Federer would achieve less early on, but much more later on in his career.
Of course, level and style of play are not independent of competitors or court conditions. Maybe homogenization wouldn't have happened until later, the dynamics of rivalries would play out differently, and all sorts of different stuff happens. But if anything, it appears Fed has missed out on just the right time to take advantage of extended peaks and a subsequent gap in young talent.
kiki
Banned
do you think he could have equalled Budge? is he still in time?
Still friendly
New User
"Field of multimajors".....:roll: When Borg won his first slam, RG 1974, there were not many in the draw. We had Nastase with 2 majors, Kodes with 3, Ashe with 2, and Smith with 2. That's a sum total of 9. Next RG, 1975, there were just 8, the same ones apart from Ashe was not there and Borg himself had one.
When he won his first W in 1976 we had: Connors (3), Ashe (3), Nastase (2), Panatta (1), Newcombe (7), and Smith (2). Plus himself (2). That's a sum of 20.
Compare to RG 2015 where we had winners of 45 majors playing. 17+14+8+2+2+1+1.
Can you match those 45 from any slam Borg played in? You choose which one.
Still friendly
New User
Certainly, there was no split in Federer's era. In all slams Fed ever played all the best players in the world at the time was there, apart of course from people too injured to play.
The same can be said for anyone playing mid 90s --->. Last slam voluntarily skipped by an uninjured top player who simply didn't bother to play was AO 1994 and Andre Agassi, I believe. Or maybe one should count Kafelnikov skipping USO 1996 over the seeding controversy.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Exactly. Do you want a bunch of guy with 1-3 majors or 2 monsters with 14 + 8 majors and 2-3 other blokes with 1-2 majors ?
6
6-3 6-0
Guest
He'd have won RG, thus preventing the CYGS.
NatF
Bionic Poster
His 1973 Wimbledon was won in a field where Roger Taylor was the #3 seed :lol:
He won his majors in an era when players regularly skipped the so called top events and allegiance was split between circuits.
Your double standards are hilarious, you talk down Federer's competition but talk up your heroes when they won majors in depleted fields.
kiki
Banned
You are deliberately forgetting some names who also won majors.
kiki
Banned
NatF
Bionic Poster
:lol:
More of your hypocrisy. Borg counts in 1973 but Nadal and Agassi are babies or too old in 2004/2005. He didn't play them anyway and only Nastase was in one of his best years...
kiki
Banned
Wrong.Connors had a superb second half of the year, commencing after his quarter final defeat at Wimbledon.So did Borg.Another Quarterfinalist at 73 Wimbledon.
The only thing you were right is about Nastase.In fact, not in one of his best years but IN HIS BEST YEAR
NatF
Bionic Poster
:lol: at Borg and Connors being in their best years. They were close to them but not their yet and neither were good enough at Wimbledon yet.
kiki
Banned
When did I mention their best years dude?
I clearly stated it was Nastase who was having his best year.
pc1
G.O.A.T.
Not taking any sides here but I think your analysis here is a bit off. First of all counting majors at the time isn't exactly the sign of strength. For example Laver played the 1977 Wimbledon and he was WAY over the hill. Yet he won if you include the Pro Majors 20 majors titles. McEnroe played that tournament and he was too young and inexperience to really be a contender although he did reach the semis.
The key to me is if the players were strong at the time. Would you rather have the Roger Federer of 2006 who had 7 majors just before the French in 2006 or would you rather have the Roger Federer of 2015 who has 17 majors if you were thinking of tennis strength? Of course the Federer of 2006 is stronger and yet he had fewer majors. Would you rather have the Nadal of 2008 represent you on red clay or would you rather have the Nadal of 2015? Nadal in 2008 before the French started only had three majors but I would venture to write that he was far superior to Nadal in 2015 before the French who has 14 majors.
The 1976 Wimbledon had an extremely strong field with Borg, Connors in their primes. Ashe was playing super tennis that year as shown by his top seeding. Nastase was still great. You also had a number of top players like Newcombe and Okker, over the hill but very good. Tanner was always a big threat to beat anyone and Ramirez was an excellent player. Gerulaitis was also excellent on grass. Vilas had some excellent moments on grass although it was not his best surface.
Remember a lot of these guys didn't play a large amount of majors. It simply wasn't as important as it is today. Laver played some big money tournaments like the Tennis Champions Classic which really were majors in actuality but they don't officially count it as a major to use that as an example.
I think you have to ask who was in their prime at the time of the tournament you are discussing.
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Let me tell you something. A casual tennis fan 20 years down the line will not even know who Laver is.
Federer's 17 majors is going to take a long time to break and he will always be the frame of reference.
/end of story
kiki
Banned
Yes, specially the Gran Slam thing...maybe it will be Federer who will be completely overlooked while the owner of the Holy Grail has already drank the blood of Inmortality
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
Do me a favor and show a picture of Laver to 10 people and tell me how many recognize him.
kiki
Banned
Show a picture of Lincoln or even Roosevelt to 10 kids aged 15 now and tell me how many nail it
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
I am not even asking you to go to children or kids. Show Laver's picture to adults of different age groups.
They are going to draw a blank.
Federer is going to remain the face of tennis for years to come till his 17 majors record is broken.
You guys do realize ARod was 2nd, MAYBE 3rd only to Nadal and Fed on grass in the past 10 years? He would be murdering the guys now in his prime, especially with his serve considering he moved better than all of the big servers today.
While I agree we don't need these incessant threads about the greatness of Roger, please do not take the troll road by adding fuel to the fire with the weak era excuses. Those have long been disproved with the overlap of the players in question having healthy H2H's with today's top 4.
While I agree we don't need these incessant threads about the greatness of Roger, please do not take the troll road by adding fuel to the fire with the weak era excuses. Those have long been disproved with the overlap of the players in question having healthy H2H's with today's top 4.
Talker
Hall of Fame
This is the same case as Nadal on clay. Or for anyone who attains some great achievement.
You can't look at the career records of players and determine that they weren't that good.
On the day all of them have played some very high level tennis and made the finals.
Look at Wawrinka's career, not astounding but on the day he can bring it.
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
Sampras won two or more majors in four different years as well (1993, 1994, 1995, and 1997).
helterskelter
G.O.A.T.
But I'm not sure that number of years with multiple wins is the best way to measure. If we were to do so, we'd have to conclude that Graf's Slam record is FAR better than Serena's. Graf won 3+ Slams five times (1988, 1989, 1993, 1995, 1996). Serena has done so only once (2002). But perhaps Serena's longevity (1999-2015) is also a factor. Graf only managed 1987-1999.
kiki
Banned
tennisaddict
Bionic Poster
and a photo is now the measure of greatness????
How much you remain in public memory is a measure.
Similar threads
