Am I the only unbiased (or least biased) Federer fan out there? :snigger
shawnbm said:
El Dude mentions something about Roger winning 3 of four slams in 2004 not being as impressive as doing it in 2012. That is hackneyed analysis in my view, respectfully. Prior to Roger accomplishing that feat for only the third time in the Open Era, it had been almost twenty years since Wilander did it and the world's focus was on Roger like nobody's business as he seemed to explode onto the scene as the new number one in January of that year and was just hands-down in another league. This was not the seasoned Roger of 2007 doing it for the first time--the pressure after the 2004 Wimbledon (which he won for the second time) was huge going into New York. We can't forget that; yet, he came through. Let us not understate that. Now, what Nole did in 2011, but Rafa had turned the trick the year before and Federer had done it three times by then. No, I believe Roger's triple crown in 2004 stacks up quite nicely with anyone else's triple crown. It has become more routine of late for a variety of reasons we have bantered about here for years. What Fed accomplished in 2004 was MIGHTY impressive.
Yes it was - and note that I didn't say it wasn't impressive, but that it wasn't as impressive if someone had done it in 2012. In 2012 you had four men playing at a truly elite level. In 2004, you had some strong competitors and arguably a stronger top 20 than in 2012, but you didn't have any other truly elite players. Roddick and Hewitt were close, but Hewitt was starting to slip by then and Roddick was rather one-dimensional, Safin was still very good but erratic, Coria and Nalbandian very talented but not on the same level, and some older players like Agassi, Henman, Grosjean and Johannson who were all very good but not great.
Again, I don't think the field was as weak as many say it was, but simply that there wasn't as much talent at the top as there has been during the Big Four era...which is why it is called the Big Four!
I think the difference between 2004 and 2012 at a Slam level is that while the overall tournament might not have been easier, winning the Final almost certainly was. In 2012 you had three of the dozen or so greatest players of the Open Era playing at or near their peaks. In 2004, only one - Roger Federer.
Look at, for instance, the route of Federer's three Slam wins in 2004:
Australian Open: Bogomolov Jr > Morrison > Reid > Hewitt > Nalbandian > Ferrero > Safin
Wimbledon: Bogdanovic > Falla > Johansson > Karlovic > Hewitt > Grosjean > Roddick
US Open: Costa > Baghdatis > Santoro > Pavel > Agassi > Henman > Hewitt
Now look at the road of the four 2012 Slam Champions:
Australian Open (Djokovic): Lorenzi > Giraldo > Mahut > Hewitt > Ferrer > Murray > Nadal
French Open (Nadal): Bolelli > Istomin > Schwank > Monaco > Almagro > Ferrer > Djokovic
Wimbledon (Federer): Ramos > Fognini > Benneteau > Malisse > Youzhny > Djokovic > Murray
US Open (Murray): Bogomolov Jr > Dodig > Lopez > Raonic > Cilic > Berdych > Djokovic
Now I personally wasn't following tennis as deeply in 2004 as I was in 2012, so it is hard for me to compare the early round players of the two different eras; anyhow, I would argue that they were--and always are--roughly similar. But what changes are the late round players. While Roger's road to the Slam victories were no walks in the park (the last four rounds of the AO was particularly grueling), note that in 2012 both he and Djokovic had to defeat two of the other Big Four players to win a Slam. Imagine havin to face Ferrer
then Murray
then Nadal, like Novak did at the 2012 AO. Doing it once is impressive enough, but doing it three times would be virtually impossible.
Also 2012 is different than 2010-11, or even 2013. In 2010 Roger had faded a bit and neither Murray or Djokovic had reached their peak. In 2011, the same was true of Murray and Federer, while Novak just had Rafa's number (although his dominance in 2011 was, in my opinion, a tad more impressive than Rafa's the year before). 2012 was, in my mind, one of the greatest years in tennis history because the Big Four were all playing at their highest combined level. A year for the ages!
Again, this is all debatable - I'm not claiming to be presenting "The Truth." See the Neils Bohr quote below. But I am interested in looking at it from different angles.
1972Murat said:
Didn't Roger make it to number 1 when all of his main rivals were in their respective primes and he was 4-5 years past it? Doesn't logic suggest he was better in his prime than 4-5 years past? And doesn't that suggest in his prime, Roger could deal with anyone, since he made it to number 1 way past his prime, during all his rival's prime?
There's certainly logic to that, and it's a valid perspective. As Neils Bohr said, in paraphrase, "While the opposite of a fact is a falsehood, the opposite of one profound truth may be another profound truth."
