Do you agree with McEnroe/Wilander on Nadal needing 15 slams to surpass Federer?

[Moxie]

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

Amongst the other good points you made, BB, this one struck me. I've been thinking about how many players who are 30-35 are still vibrantly in the mix. It's all over the press. So, if that was a "weak era," then what are they all doing dominating the youngsters? And so, yes, I would say, that proves that Federer was dominating a very good generation, when they were all in their early years.

 

[ClayDeath]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

excellent post and one can respect that in a way you have made your case.


and he was the greatest of all time until somebody else came along. it does happen in sports from time to time but nobody expected nadal to be able to do it.


true students of the sport and the ultimate insiders will also look at roger`s competition back then. that has to be taken into account.


competition is brutal today and the sport really is in its golden age.

roger is still plenty damn good. he won a slam in 2012 so he is not that far removed.

the problem is that of competition. it is too damn tough and they all need a little bit of luck.

call up lendl and ask him how hard it is to win a slam today.


these are the best players in history.

 

[zalvar]

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

Amongst the other good points you made, BB, this one struck me. I've been thinking about how many players who are 30-35 are still vibrantly in the mix. It's all over the press. So, if that was a "weak era," then what are they all doing dominating the youngsters? And so, yes, I would say, that proves that Federer was dominating a very good generation, when they were all in their early years.

Moxie, the talent was definitely there. But how many times have we heard from announcers and former players commenting that these 30+ people are playing A LOT better than they were in their early years?

Anyway I agree that it wasn't a weak era. Rog dominated them.

 

[Ricardo]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

Transitional? what makes you think Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt be getting 4-6 majors if Fed wasn't around? when i see 'transitional' i can smell shameless crap relating to weak era theory, which is based on your wishful thinking at denigrating somebody.

I don't know who gives you the idea that if Fed was born a few years later, that he couldn't handle it. It's reasonable to assume he still has matchup issues with Rafa, but against Djoker and Murray he'd be favored to win still. If a past his prime version Fed can compete with them in majors, even at RG 2011 when Djoker was at his best beating Rafa, at USO where he was match points up playing slightly better tennis of the two, at Wimbledon where he actually beat them back to back, at various MS1000 events, etc etc etc; what makes you think he couldn't have it 'easy' these days?

Just because he achieved and you don't like it.

 

[britbox]

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

We're looking at it with a great deal of hindsight Zalvar. At the time, say 2002/2003 nobody was saying they were transitional number ones. Hewitt was number one for eighty weeks... people like Sampras were saying they were likely to dominate the sport. Safin was regarded by others as the "future of tennis"

In 2003 when Federer, Roddick and Ferrero were in a three horse race for #1, nobody was saying these guys were transitional. Heck you can even read journalist's reports when Roddick won the US Open, predicting he would go onto win a lot more majors.

The fact that Federer broke out and set a new bar and dominated his peer group shouldn't work against him - it should work in his favour when considering legacies.

As for rivalries - of course these guys were rivals. Federer had a strong rivalry with Nalbandian going back to junior days. Hewitt had his number for a long time. Fans only stopped calling them rivalries in hindsight when Federer started dominating the rivalry.

If as you say, it's not a rivalry if you expect one player to win the vast majority of matches, then you can level the same line of thinking to Nadal. The whole argument has come full circle.

The greatest players dominate. Federer did that for a sustained period. Losing more matches in a H2H to make it seem more of a rivalry doesn't make a player greater.

 

[Ricardo]

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

Amongst the other good points you made, BB, this one struck me. I've been thinking about how many players who are 30-35 are still vibrantly in the mix. It's all over the press. So, if that was a "weak era," then what are they all doing dominating the youngsters? And so, yes, I would say, that proves that Federer was dominating a very good generation, when they were all in their early years.

Moxie, the talent was definitely there. But how many times have we heard from announcers and former players commenting that these 30+ people are playing A LOT better than they were in their early years?

Anyway I agree that it wasn't a weak era. Rog dominated them.

don't get smart, it wasn't 'weak' but Rog had it 'easy'.... does that sound right?

 

[zalvar]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

Transitional? what makes you think Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt be getting 4-6 majors if Fed wasn't around? when i see 'transitional' i can smell shameless crap relating to weak era theory, which is based on your wishful thinking at denigrating somebody.

I don't know who gives you the idea that if Fed was born a few years later, that he couldn't handle it. It's reasonable to assume he still has matchup issues with Rafa, but against Djoker and Murray he'd be favored to win still. If a past his prime version Fed can compete with them in majors, even at RG 2011 when Djoker was at his best beating Rafa, at USO where he was match points up playing slightly better tennis of the two, at Wimbledon where he actually beat them back to back, at various MS1000 events, etc etc etc; what makes you think he couldn't have it 'easy' these days?

Just because he achieved and you don't like it.

Uhhhh, I don't think he'll do it quite easily because I watch tennis? Because of what I see now from Rafa and Novak and Andy? lol It's easy to see those three are quite more consistent, dedicated and focused than the ones that Rog whoopped. I have no idea what he would have won or not won had he been born later, but I'm convinced it would have been harder for him against these 3.

You seem to be convinced that I hate Roger but that's not even close, I'm a fan as well.

 

[Ricardo]

Just a response to the bloded part:

The thing is ...Roger didn't get any resistance from anyone till Rafa came along. He had free reign for 3 years. Roger was in his PRIME and should have been whipping the 3 up and comers, which he did for a bit.

You're asking who's challenging Rafa, Novak and Andy and the answer is eachother. They have the misfortune of playing against eachother whom are of the same age and would be battling with them and preventing the other from winning till the end of their careers.

Where as Roger raked in early in his prime AND now has the excuse of age at the near end. Obviously, it's not his fault. Just saying.

I just think it needs to be ackowledged that it's harder also to win against guys who are in the same physical state and experience level, etc. It's more even between them. Titles will be more spread out.

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.

you never said? ok, so it's just that Fed had nobodies to compete against except Rafa, and he had it EASY..... of course you didn't say 'weak era', but what does the above really say? sure :clap

 

[zalvar]

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

Amongst the other good points you made, BB, this one struck me. I've been thinking about how many players who are 30-35 are still vibrantly in the mix. It's all over the press. So, if that was a "weak era," then what are they all doing dominating the youngsters? And so, yes, I would say, that proves that Federer was dominating a very good generation, when they were all in their early years.

Moxie, the talent was definitely there. But how many times have we heard from announcers and former players commenting that these 30+ people are playing A LOT better than they were in their early years?

Anyway I agree that it wasn't a weak era. Rog dominated them.

don't get smart, it wasn't 'weak' but Rog had it 'easy'.... does that sound right?

Good Lord, what do you want from me? lmao. Yes, Rog was more comfortable earlier, because, in my opinion, he didn't have a full fledged rival. But eventually, after that small window, he got himself a rival.

 

[britbox]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

excellent post and one can respect that in a way you have made your case.


and he was the greatest of all time until somebody else came along. it does happen in sports from time to time but nobody expected nadal to be able to do it.


true students of the sport and the ultimate insiders will also look at roger`s competition back then. that has to be taken into account.


competition is brutal today and the sport really is in its golden age.

roger is still plenty damn good. he won a slam in 2012 so he is not that far removed.

the problem is that of competition. it is too damn tough and they all need a little bit of luck.

call up lendl and ask him how hard it is to win a slam today.


these are the best players in history.

Roger is still a top player (regardless of form) and I suspect he's got a little more left in the tank. We'll see next year.

I don't regard Nadal as the greatest player of all time (yet)... he may well end up there, but right now he needs to win more majors and ideally needs a bit more time at #1.

Right now, he's 4 majors short of Federer and it's difficult for me to regard a player as the greatest of all time when he's spent less than two years in the #1 slot.

Probably a matter of time, but nothing is certain in sport. Djokovic going on a tear in 2011 proved that in recent times.

 

[Ricardo]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

Transitional? what makes you think Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt be getting 4-6 majors if Fed wasn't around? when i see 'transitional' i can smell shameless crap relating to weak era theory, which is based on your wishful thinking at denigrating somebody.

I don't know who gives you the idea that if Fed was born a few years later, that he couldn't handle it. It's reasonable to assume he still has matchup issues with Rafa, but against Djoker and Murray he'd be favored to win still. If a past his prime version Fed can compete with them in majors, even at RG 2011 when Djoker was at his best beating Rafa, at USO where he was match points up playing slightly better tennis of the two, at Wimbledon where he actually beat them back to back, at various MS1000 events, etc etc etc; what makes you think he couldn't have it 'easy' these days?

Just because he achieved and you don't like it.

Uhhhh, I don't think he'll do it quite easily because I watch tennis? Because of what I see now from Rafa and Novak and Andy? lol It's easy to see those three are quite more consistent, dedicated and focused than the ones that Rog whoopped. I have no idea what he would have won or not won had he been born later, but I'm convinced it would have been harder for him against these 3.

You seem to be convinced that I hate Roger but that's not even close, I'm a fan as well.

Leave Rafa out the picture for a second, he is a tough one for Federer in any case. But Novak and Murray? i am not convinced they are that much better than when Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalby were at their peak. from what i saw when these old useless folks played these young champs, i don't think their game was all that bad if at all.

 

[zalvar]

Zalvar, Federer's H2H was 0-5 against Nalbandian at the beginning of that rivalry. He had to solve that puzzle and pull ahead in that rivalry. Nalby was a good player. Hewitt also won 7 out of their first 9 matches against Federer...he righted that ship later on too...The only guy Federer totally owned from the start in his class was Roddick . He had some good rivalries before Nadal man.

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.

you never said? ok, so it's just that Fed had nobodies to compete against except Rafa, and he had it EASY..... of course you didn't say 'weak era', but what does the above really say? sure :clap

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

 

[zalvar]

Federer's peer group were Safin, Ferrero, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt. Four of those five were former world number ones. Not to mention, the remnants of the previous generation who were no chopped liver either, and still playing good tennis - the likes of Kuerten, Moya, Agassi... again, all former world number ones and playing well enough to be relevant.

Throw other guys into the mix like Haas, Davydenko, etc. and combine that with the fact that over thirty "Over 30s" made the main draw at Roland Garros this year brings me to the conclusion it was far from a weak era.

I'm always kind of tickled when people say Federer had it so easy. As Murat explained - he turned around all the Head to Head's against his peer group from a lopsided losing margin in some cases (Hewitt, Nalbandian). He made it look easy because he raised the bar to a level that took him beyond the rest of the tour. People sneering at the likes of Roddick and the Fed/Roddick H2H would do well to remember Roddick led his H2H with Djokovic 5-4. Even Davydenko has a H2H over Nadal.

In the climate of "What did you do for me yesterday" thinking, these players get lost in the mix. Hewitt isn't even a patch of the player over the last 5 years than he was from 2000-2005. Roddick was a far more dangerous propostion in the 2003 than he was in 2012. Anyone other than Cali used to watch a peak Nalbandian? Unfortunately, with a lot of "fanboy" thinking, people look at the declined versions of these players years later and assume that was what Federer had to overcome at the time. It wasn't.

He then had the young blood coming through - the next generation on from his peer group - Nadal, Djokovic, Murray... All top players who rode the path Federer set in raising the bar. Who have the current generation got coming through? Dimitrov, Tomic?? Please... it's not even on the same page... Which is the weak era again?

Federer's best years were 2004, 2005 & 2006. Add in 2007 I guess, but the previous three were his absolute peak. As Djokovic will attest from 2011 - it's difficult to dominate for such a sustained period. Nobody else has dominated for a three or four year period since the turn of the century other than Federer.

I'm not really sure what the heck people expect from Federer now or what he needs to prove. He's 32 years old, 5 or 6 years past his true prime, has played more matches than anyone else on the tour.

He'll still be "relevant" until he hangs it up and might (I hope) have another spike upwards before he hangs it up... but he owes nothing to anyone. Enjoy the twilight of his career while you can. He's still the greatest player I've seen over the course of a career, bar none.

Brit, Safin ... Hewitt .. Ferrero ... they were transitional number ones. Sampras and Agassi were oldish and Roger wasn't mature enough in his play and they swooped in for a bit. Male versions of Ivanovic, Jelena, Safina, Woz. It wasn't a weak era. Imo there were always dark horses, but Rog didn't have a rival until Rafa came - let's be honest. If Rafa and Novak met these days, we have no idea who will win. Roger vs those contemporaries ... you would have bet 85-90% Roger will win when he was in those years you listed as his prime EXCEPT against rafa.

Transitional? what makes you think Hewitt and Roddick wouldnt be getting 4-6 majors if Fed wasn't around? when i see 'transitional' i can smell shameless crap relating to weak era theory, which is based on your wishful thinking at denigrating somebody.

I don't know who gives you the idea that if Fed was born a few years later, that he couldn't handle it. It's reasonable to assume he still has matchup issues with Rafa, but against Djoker and Murray he'd be favored to win still. If a past his prime version Fed can compete with them in majors, even at RG 2011 when Djoker was at his best beating Rafa, at USO where he was match points up playing slightly better tennis of the two, at Wimbledon where he actually beat them back to back, at various MS1000 events, etc etc etc; what makes you think he couldn't have it 'easy' these days?

Just because he achieved and you don't like it.

Uhhhh, I don't think he'll do it quite easily because I watch tennis? Because of what I see now from Rafa and Novak and Andy? lol It's easy to see those three are quite more consistent, dedicated and focused than the ones that Rog whoopped. I have no idea what he would have won or not won had he been born later, but I'm convinced it would have been harder for him against these 3.

You seem to be convinced that I hate Roger but that's not even close, I'm a fan as well.

Leave Rafa out the picture for a second, he is a tough one for Federer in any case. But Novak and Murray? i am not convinced they are that much better than when Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Nalby were at their peak. from what i saw when these old useless folks played these young champs, i don't think their game was all that bad if at all.

Man. Ok sure Andy still has a lot to prove as well. But to be specific about stuff, Hewitt didn't have enough power. Safin was inconsistent. Roddick could not rally with fed ... Nalby was great but weak in the mind. I don't remember much how they played but those are glaring weaknesses and I can't think of any with regards to Novak. With andy, his head i guess and he gets defensive ... Blah. I am tired. We should agree to disagree. lol.

 

[ClayDeath]

folks I think these factors well be the deal breakers:


1. nadal`s head to head against roger. there is no way around his 21 wins against roger. he also has him in at least 6 of 8 slams--which is the single greatest ultimate test of who is better--on all 3 surfaces.

2. nadal`s total slam haul. it could hit 17.

3. nadal`s head to ahead against ALL of his greatest rivals. he owns a winning record against all top 30 players. so don't talk about matchups because people who know the game and understand it laugh at that. you might have a matchup issue with one or two players but how do you explain that he owns a winning record against all top 30 players and all of his greatest rivals.

and with the way he is going, you expect his record against them to get a little better.

4. composition of nadal`s slams. his haul of 8-10 RG crowns will work for him and not against him when considering the fact that some of the greatest players in history could not even get a single RG crown.. it is the hardest slam to win.

5. his masters series haul which may hit 35-40 if he can stay healthy.



and to a lesser extent: he has an Olympic gold and countless davis cup wins. these accomplishments will work for him and not against him.

 

[britbox]

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

:nono Wrong way around. Rafa, Novak and Andy had to Improve a lot to beat Federer. He set the bar.

 

[zalvar]

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

:nono Wrong way around. Rafa, Novak and Andy had to Improve a lot to beat Federer. He set the bar.

Ohmigod. They ALL had to improve because they actually had the ability and talent to compete with eachother! Unlike ... (oh god i have to say it again) ... unlike ... fed's early years when NO ONE could up their level.

 

[ClayDeath]

this has become quite an entertaining thread.

good stuff.

 

[Moxie]

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

:nono Wrong way around. Rafa, Novak and Andy had to Improve a lot to beat Federer. He set the bar.

Ohmigod. They ALL had to improve because they actually had the ability and talent to compete with eachother! Unlike ... (oh god i have to say it again) ... unlike ... fed's early years when NO ONE could up their level.

I don't think this is completely fair, zalvar. You look at the guys that were competing in Roger's early years, and you're comparing them to the wrong people. Hewitt was much better than a Berdych, for example. Safin better than Del Potro. Nalbandian was a reasonable level to take on Djokovic and Murray, anyway. It's not just that Federer was better than they were, or that the level of competition at this moment is high, at the top level. It's also that the tier just below was very good. Arguably, even better than now. That means that winning, week in and week out, wasn't a walk in the park.

 

[DarthFed]

I guess those are rivalries ... I don't know lol I wish they played when they're all at the same level like the big 3 are right now. I just never imagined any of those guys as a threat to Roger in the slams once 2004 started and Roger dominated. So the "catching up" on those h2h happened post 2003 wimbly and he never looked back. But you're correct, Nalby def proved to be the stiffest challenge semi-consistently. Hewitt was number one when he was beating Roger and once Roger took over, Hewitt was basically unable to be scrappy enough for Rog's brilliance at that time. I can't even talk about Roddick .. he was my fave and Roger stabbed me in the heart everytime Andy's serve got backband sliced to death. gah. bad memories.

Anyway, to me, Rog is GOAT ... for now.

Rafa needs a Tour finals win, another Aussie ... stay a little longer at number 1.

until you cut that weak era crap, you don't know what you are talking about.

also, how is age excuse for Fed? the guy is much older and past his prime indeed, and when the current big 3 start losing to nobodies on a consistent basis when they are in their 30s, i count on you not to use age as 'excuse'. But i bet you will, and i know being objective is very difficult.

I don't think it's a weak ERA. I never said that :huh: Since the 80s I've never really considered any ERA weak. But I wouldn't give the word "Rival" so liberally. Roger didn't have one until Rafa. When he was losing against Hewitt and the likes, he wasn't yet in his prime. When he was beating all of them, he was TOO GOOD for them. He didn't have a guy until Rafa where you didn't lean so hugely towards Roger to win any match he plays.

you never said? ok, so it's just that Fed had nobodies to compete against except Rafa, and he had it EASY..... of course you didn't say 'weak era', but what does the above really say? sure :clap

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

Great, another one of those who thinks Roger is as good/better at 30 than he was at 25 :huh: Roger at 25 would have had no prayer vs. Novak and Andy :laydownlaughing

 

[zalvar]

Let's just make this plain and easy, ya?

I: Think Rog had to improve a lot to beat Rafa and Novak and Andy.

You: Think he just played the same way regardless if it was Hewitt or Novak.

Just because I think Rog has better competition now doesn't automatically mean I think the others were bad. Why is it so hard to admit that Nadal and Novak are better than Ferrero, Safin and Hewitt?

:nono Wrong way around. Rafa, Novak and Andy had to Improve a lot to beat Federer. He set the bar.

Ohmigod. They ALL had to improve because they actually had the ability and talent to compete with eachother! Unlike ... (oh god i have to say it again) ... unlike ... fed's early years when NO ONE could up their level.

I don't think this is completely fair, zalvar. You look at the guys that were competing in Roger's early years, and you're comparing them to the wrong people. Hewitt was much better than a Berdych, for example. Safin better than Del Potro. Nalbandian was a reasonable level to take on Djokovic and Murray, anyway. It's not just that Federer was better than they were, or that the level of competition at this moment is high, at the top level. It's also that the tier just below was very good. Arguably, even better than now. That means that winning, week in and week out, wasn't a walk in the park.

Moxie, I wasn't comparing them at all to Novak or Andy, initially. On the contrary, I was suggesting that Novak and Andy are obviously better than them that I don't have to bother comparing. lol I get that the level "just below" was still good. As you said, comparable to now's top 10-5, but they hardly won anything when Rog got rolling.

Anyway, no matter if it's a walk in the park or the Sahara desert, we won't really remember any of those details. In the end, Roger won most of it, regardless of the struggle.

I don't even remember what my point is anymore.

What I was just trying to say was. Roger had a little bright light early in his career where the competition was a lot manageable FOR HIM (and only him). Where as Rafa, Novak, and Andy was slammed in the face by the shining glory of Roger Federer from the start of their career and then STILL have each other till the end.