Early Years of "Generation Federer" (early 00s) - a question

[backhandslapper]

Yeah, sure. 23 year old Hewitt, 24 year old Safin, 22 year old Roddick, 24 year old Ferrero, 23 year old Nalbandian were all way past their best. Federer was so lucky to get these old burnt out relics.

A 22-year-old Hewitt apparently felt so burnt out, following the US Open 2003, he sat out the rest of the year playing only Davis Cup. What should have been his peak year in 2004 was in fact a comeback year, and after a brief period of improving play in 04 and 05, serious injuries began slowing him down. Not a normal career arch for sure. Far cry from that electric little beast he used to be in 00, 01, 02.

Safin was in fact returning from injury during 2004. He would still play awesome tennis here and there, but...

Ferrero was finished as a serious contender for number one by 2004 due to injuries.

Not a big secret or anything. I'm not saying that Federer was served his dominance on a silver platter, but denying the circumstance was favorable to build one's myth means falling for it.

 

[Front242]

You can say that about any era. Djokovic was lucky to have played against a declined Federer in so many slam matches during his own absolute prime. He also only managed to beat a seriously declined Nadal at RG but couldn't do so in Nadal's prime. We could say this about tons of players in history. People make more of a big deal out of Federer as he's won the most slams but just as many current and prior eras have faced ageing opposition. It's basic human nature that people age. It also serves to counter the argument that eg Federer won many slams in a supposedly weak era when he's still winning them at 36 in 2017. So I guess he's just one lucky mofo. Or he could just be great after all.

 

[backhandslapper]

You can say that about any era. Djokovic was lucky to have played against a declined Federer in so many slam matches during his own absolute prime. He also only managed to beat a seriously declined Nadal at RG but couldn't do so in his prime. We could see this about tons if players in history. People make more of a big deal out of Federer as he's won the most slams bit just as many current and prior eras have faced ageing opposition. It's basic human nature that people age. It also serves to counter the argument that eg Federer won many slams in a supposedly weak era when he's still winning them at 36 in 2017. So I guess he's just one lucky mofo. Or he could just be great after all.

And that's why it's perfectly okay to say it. It's also prefectly okay to emphasize it when we run into a similar scenario such as 03/04. And it's okay to assume this perspective and point out that you probably couldn't say the same thing about Nadal, right?

The throne was hardly vacant by the time he shot up. And not only was he forced to dethrone a record-breaker and an all-time great. He had another one right at his heels.

Note the difference?

From this perspective, his GS totals might be a bit more impressive than Federer's. And why be quiet about it? Only because it's obvious?
Btw, Djokovic definitely had to deal with a prime / peak Nadal. He topped him in 2011 / early 2012, just like Nadal topped Djokovic during 2010.

 

[Front242]

And that's why it's perfectly okay to say it. It's also prefectly okay to emphasize it when we run into a similar scenario such as 03/04. And it's okay to assume this perspective and point out that you probably couldn't say the same thing about Nadal, right?

The throne was hardly vacant by the time he shot up. And not only was he forced to dethrone a record-breaker and an all-time great. He had another one right at his heels.

Note the difference?

From this perspective, his GS totals might be a bit more impressive than Federer's. And why be quiet about it? Only because it's obvious?
Btw, Djokovic definitely had to deal with a prime / peak Nadal. He topped him in 2011 / early 2012, just like Nadal topped Djokovic during 2010.

Er, you just said in a previous post correctly that Nadal obviously played the same era as Federer that you and others claim was weak so which is it to be? I don't personally think it was anywhere near as weak as the past few years personally and not even that weak at all when you list the players then compared to the guys in the top 20 last few years. Much stronger top 20 in the famous "Federer weak era" which as pointed out Nadal also played in.

 

[backhandslapper]

Er, you just said in a previous post correctly that Nadal obviously played the same era as Federer that you and others claim was weak so which is it to be? I don't personally think it was anywhere near as weak as the past few years personally and not even that weak at all when you list the players then compared to the guys in the top 20 last few years. Much stronger top 20 in the famous "Federer weak era" which as pointed out Nadal also played in.

I said that Nadal's dominance on clay and his early ascend to number two was partly a result of the weak era, just like Federer's dominance off the clay was. Yet I never said that dethroning Federer was the same piece of cake as dethroning Roddick. The opposite. Getting ahead of the pack behind Federer, yeah, getting ahead of Federer himself, not so much.

To get to number one, Federer had to overtake Roddick. Nadal had to overtake Roddick to get to number 2.

Note the difference? Roddick was a weekend rock star. Federer was the Beatles. You may not agree with what I say in the grand scheme of things, but if you actually pay attention, it makes sense.

 

[Front242]

I said that Nadal's dominance on clay and his early ascend to number two was partly a result of the weak era, just like Federer's dominance off the clay was. Yet I never said that dethroning Federer was the same piece of cake as dethroning Roddick. The opposite. Getting ahead of the pack behind Federer, yeah, getting ahead of Federer himself, not so much.

To get to number one, Federer had to overtake Roddick. Nadal had to overtake Roddick to get to number 2.

Note the difference? Roddick was a weekend rock star. Federer was the Beatles. You may not agree with what I say in the grand scheme of things, but if you actually pay attention, it makes sense.

It's all become a lot clearer in the last few posts. You initially claimed to a be a fan of tennis and not of any particular player but the anti Federer vibe is clear when you're "biging up" Nadal in every post from now on. So let's get this straight...it's not much of an achievement for Federer to get to number 1 by being better than Roddick but it is for Nadal to do so?! Okkkkkay. Good for Nadal I guess lol. Sorry, doesn't make any sense. This has been debated to death for years by others btw. Prime Roddick would have won multiple slams if not for Federer (probably 5+) and was much better than what all of the people out there claiming otherwise give him credit for. The problem is people have very limited memories and only recall Roddick at the tail end of his career when his forehand was a joke compared to in his prime and he was all bashed up from various injuries. Prime Roddick was a beast and hit a much flatter forehand and served better than in his final years on tour. That forehand went all loopy and crap as he aged and got injured frequently.

 

[backhandslapper]

It's all become a lot clearer in the last few posts. You initially claimed to a be a fan of tennis and not of any particular player but the anti Federer vibe is clear when you're "biging up" Nadal in every post from now on. So let's get this straight...it's not much of an achievement for Federer to get to number 1 by being better than Roddick but it is for Nadal to do so?! Okkkkkay. Good for Nadal I guess lol. Sorry, doesn't make any sense. This has been debated to death for years by others btw. Prime Roddick would have won multiple slams if not for Federer (probably 5+) and was much better than what all of the people out there claiming otherwise give him credit for. The problem is people have very limited memories and only recall Roddick at the tail end of his career when his forehand was a joke compared to in his prime and he was all bashed up from various injuries. Prime Roddick was a beast and hit a much flatter forehand and served better than in his final years on tour. That forehand went all loopy and crap as he aged and got injured frequently.

Some big elementary logic struggles there. You didn't get it. And of course, everyone who happens to see that Roger had an easier time clinching No1 than Nadal is basically anti-Roger. Except...

No.

I haven't known you for too long, but I do dare suggesting: you spend more time reading the posts you reply to rather than just... say something. That's a waste of time, yours included. And I'm done here. We have gone pretty far off-topic anyway.