Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

[drm025]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

When did I say Federer wasn't good????? Don't put words in my mouth. I said the era he dominated was weaker than today's era. That's all.

DRM, the spirit of your post is pretty clear to me, without you spelling it out.

Well you're reading too much into it then. Obviously, I wouldn't start this thread if I was a Federer fanatic. But, I clearly said in my first post that I believe Federer is the most consistent player there has ever been. I believe he is one of the greatest, just not necessarily the greatest. I don't think that's the same as saying he's not that good.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

You know , 10 years from now, somebody is going to come here and say "Well, Nadal really was not that good on clay...look at it, he won RG 10 times and everything else too...surely he had no competition..." Well, he HAD no competition in the sense that he is so good on clay, it makes everyone else look mediocre at best.

When did I say Federer wasn't good????? Don't put words in my mouth. I said the era he dominated was weaker than today's era. That's all.

DRM, the spirit of your post is pretty clear to me, without you spelling it out.

Well you're reading too much into it then. Obviously, I wouldn't start this thread if I was a Federer fanatic. But, I clearly said in my first post that I believe Federer is the most consistent player there has ever been. I believe he is one of the greatest, just not necessarily the greatest. I don't think that's the same as saying he's not that good.

It is not always clear what a poster is trying to say, but you have to agree it is very open to misinterpretation, don't you think? I mean , if I told someone "You are not that smart" he can understand it as "Wow, I am not that smart, but I am still somewhat smart" or "Wow, he just called me stupid".
Either way, keep posting bro...

 

[Moxie]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Oh, jeepers. I hope we've moved on now. Perhaps we can go the the less-controversial, "Who IS the GOAT?" or "Did that net touch really cost Djokovic the FO?" Or how about the ever-harmonious: "Men v. women in sports?" :nono :laydownlaughing

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Oh, jeepers. I hope we've moved on now. Perhaps we can go the the less-controversial, "Who IS the GOAT?" or "Did that net touch really cost Djokovic the FO?" Or how about the ever-harmonious: "Men v. women in sports?" :nono :laydownlaughing

Don't forget Troicki....:lolz:

 

[Moxie]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Oh, jeepers. I hope we've moved on now. Perhaps we can go the the less-controversial, "Who IS the GOAT?" or "Did that net touch really cost Djokovic the FO?" Or how about the ever-harmonious: "Men v. women in sports?" :nono :laydownlaughing

Don't forget Troicki....:lolz:

And Cilic…and what really happened to Robin Soderling? :emperor:

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Good stuff, drm25, generating a potboiler. This is an old battle and you can see the reaction to it still, which tells you something. You brought up a good one without denigrating the great Fed at all.

Now, about them women tennis players!

 

[BalaryKar]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

I for one seriously don't get how we are really out of the so-called "Weak Era"? Let me start with Nole2.0 beginning at 2011. Bring the Federer of 2004-07 in. Nole gets AO11 a-la Safin05. Remember what happened after AO05 to Safin. Fed easily takes him out at Indiana Wells and resumes the hard-court dominance. And then begins the fun. We already know Nole loses out at FO SF11. Next comes Wimbledon. Don't see Tsonga coming 2sets down with 2extra gears Fed and then we know grass being weakest Nole surface. Gone is Nole 11 Wimbledon. The beast that Fed was at Wimbledon simply does not allow Nole to have a peak at the finals. At the USO Fed of 04-07 ain't losing after 2 sets up. A Nole at AO12 who is stretched to 5-sets by Nadal and Murray and this year by Wawrinka is not really big deal for Fed of 04-07. Nole losses at 3rd seed to Nadal in semis as against finals. Wimby12 is in Fed bag already. Cometh the US, don't see how Murray handles a full-blown Fed and then again the prime Fed at Wimbledon. Now, except AO11 I don't see any slams being won by anybody other than Nadal and Fed. Give me a break! Nole and Murray, will all due respect, ain't handling 04-07 Fed. Nearly 2+gears less Fed takes to 5sets Murray at the AO.

 

[BalaryKar]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

And yes, the Fed of 03-08 Wimbledon does not lose to Murray of 13 at Wimbledon. I for one don't believe anybody other than Nadal winning at Wimbledon 08.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

One of the interesting cases is David Ferrer. Here's a player who in his prime, was relatively low ranked (we are talking a few stints in the top 10, but mostly a top 20 player), but then managed to climb up the rankings in his late twenties and then has been a mainstay in the top 6 in his early thirties.

Is it b/c he's better than than he was when he was 25? That would be hard to argue from a physiological point of view, indeed if you watch old footage he really did have more wheels than today. Instead the primary difference, is that he is getting a far larger share of points from tournaments where he did not perform well in the old days. Places like Wimbledon, and the late fall season were blackholes for him point wise, but in recent years he has completely reversed that statistic.

The rest can be attributed to more confidence and a higher seeding.

But I mean, it's interesting to see that his style of play, which has worked so well in modern times, was not always generating so many wins. I'd argue that a lot of that is due to the homogenization of the game, that it picks out certain styles of players and as a consequence the variance in who wins what is much smaller than at any time in the history of the ATP.

 

[shawnbm]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

The Federer-Nadal-Djokovic era is never going to be perceived as weak under any stretch of the imagination, and Federer and Nadal have been involved in all facets.

 

[shawnbm]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Federer's most dominating years were 2004-2007, even though he still contested three GS finals and won the US Open in 2008. Rafa won 3 majors in that time and lost in 2 finals in London to Roger. I don't think there is anyone here who would say Rafa played in a weak era and I certainly don't think Roger did either. This stuff is nonsensical and it is only an argument when you look back in time and try to color the past to lift one up and drag another down. Britbox has commented lucidly on this thread and his posts are enlightening.

 

[Haelfix]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

A lot of the argument boils down to the following proposition. If you could bring Novak Djokovic, prime Nadal and Andy Murray back into the early 2ks, how would they fare against Federer and his generation?

My guess is that they would mostly dominate on surfaces like clay and slow hards. Perhaps Nalbandian, Hewitt, Agassi, Davydenko, Safin and Roddick could steal a few upset wins at the AO, and Coria, Ferrero and Kuerten could perhaps steal a few upsets at RG, but for the most part I think that it would likely be the same guys as today (eg Fed/Murray/Novak/Nadal) the majority of times.

However, its hard to see them not being challenged on fast grass and at the old USO (with the old 'dead' balls) by the old guys. I very much doubt we'd see perpetual big 4 semifinals at those venues

 

[coban]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Belittling Roger's achievements makes today's top guys look weak.

Yea, that why this dicussion is so stupid.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Belittling Roger's achievements makes today's top guys look weak.

Yea, that why this dicussion is so stupid.

Agreed, the funniest part is they try to degrade 4 years worth of achievements and then use Roger in the great competition argument of Rafa and Nole even though he has been past his prime for 5 or 6 years. Rafa was too young and harmless in 05-07 when he already won everything on clay and made 2 Wimbledon finals but old man Roger is a beast. What do you think happens to 27-32 year old Roger vs. 23-26 year old Roger? It wouldn't have been pretty.

 

[Kieran]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Nobody said Rafa was "too young and harmless in 05-07" but there's always a different standard applied to young Rafa and young Roger, as if 19 year old Fed gets a pass, but 19 year old Rafa is at his peak. It's nonsense. Rafa did so well on clay when he was young because he was so much better than anyone else and this is his surface. It doesn't mean that he was in his prime. In fact, you could say that the reason why an in-development Rafa was Roger's main rival from 2005-2007 is because none of Roger's peers were up to the job. Obviously they weren't.

But still, Rafa in those years was developing his game on hards and grass - just was Roger was at the same age (though in Roger's case, he wasn't also expected to be challenging the #1)...

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Nobody said Rafa was "too young and harmless in 05-07" but there's always a different standard applied to young Rafa and young Roger, as if 19 year old Fed gets a pass, but 19 year old Rafa is at his peak. It's nonsense. Rafa did so well on clay when he was young because he was so much better than anyone else and this is his surface. It doesn't mean that he was in his prime. In fact, you could say that the reason why an in-development Rafa was Roger's main rival from 2005-2007 is because none of Roger's peers were up to the job. Obviously they weren't.

But still, Rafa in those years was developing his game on hards and grass - just was Roger was at the same age (though in Roger's case, he wasn't also expected to be challenging the #1)...

I don't think anyone said Rafa of 05-07 was in his prime or that there were different standards. But people generally overlook the fact Rafa was already the clay monster the last 3 years of Roger's prime and was at least solid on grass. You kind of have to overlook that fact to say Roger ruled a weak era.

Meanwhile the same people will act like Roger is playing as well as ever the last 5-6 years, whereas he has been almost like a "Rafa of 05-07" aside from the fact he hasn't been dominant at any of the slams from 08-13. It's just that they were different career arcs, Rafa was too young to be at his best and now Roger too old...

 

[Moxie]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Moxie, Darth is just brutally honest but you are correct ,Fed play was the same but this is when the match up issues with Rafa became very balent,Imo.

 

[DarthFed]

RE: Did Federer really dominate in a “Weak Era”?

Darth, IMO you're cutting off Roger's "peak" too early to put it at 2007. He was 25-26 that year, and in 08-09 he won 3 Majors and was in 4 other finals of Slams, I think.

Some such as myself see 2008 and 2009 as a drop off in play from his very best years. 2008 has been beaten to death but all in all you saw tons more bad losses from Roger in 08 and 09 overall, including at slams. 2008 saw a 65 match win streak on grass snapped and that was considered to be one of his better matches. 2009 saw a 41 match win streak snapped at the USO in pathetic fashion. I don't think that stacks up well to his very best years.

Moxie, Darth is just brutally honest but you are correct ,Fed play was the same but this is when the match up issues with Rafa became very balent,Imo.

We will agree to disagree on that. It wasn't just Rafa in 2008 and 2009, he was beaten easy at AO 08 and lost an awful final to DP in 09, straight setted by Blake at Olympics in 08, also the only year he didn't even make the semis of YEC. Quite an obvious dip in play, but he was still great back then of course.