Fedalovic Wars

[PhiEaglesfan712]

It sucks that Safin and Hewitt fell off so early. If they stayed good for a few more years after that 2005 AO final, no one would be talking about how weak the competition was during the Fed dominant years. Rafa, along with a very good Safin and Hewitt, would be just as good competition as the 2018-2023 Djokovic dominant era.

 

[Moxie]

It sucks that Safin and Hewitt fell off so early. If they stayed good for a few more years after that 2005 AO final, no one would be talking about how weak the competition was during the Fed dominant years. Rafa, along with a very good Safin and Hewitt, would be just as good competition as the 2018-2023 Djokovic dominant era.

You've got this wrong. If they were going to give Roger better competition, they needed to have done it before 2005, which they barely did. Also, Safin retired nearly 5 years after winning the 2005 AO, though he never won another tournament. And Rusty H. didn't retire from singles until 2016. There is no "what ifs" for what they didn't do to Roger. For various reasons, in their best years, they didn't get the job done. Once Roger got his legs under him, he was really too much for Hewitt, who also had loads of injuries. Safin did leave a lot on the table in his career, but his years to trouble Roger started well before 2005.

 

[mrzz]

The competition argument, based on results and not on the matches themselves, is completely pointless. The winner pays the price for winning.

So Federer competition was lame around 2005? And after that it got suddenly better? The competition Nadal was beating in 2008/2009 was that better, or the same bunch of losers plus the loser that beat only the other losers?

This argument leads only to one conclusion: everybody sucks. It is a stupid argument that ignores what actually happens on court.

Competition can suck, but without assessing the actual matches, there is no way of measuring it.

One simple example to illustrate: let us suppose Nadal and Djokovic were even better players and managed to beat Wawrinka in the major finals they lost to him. We saw the matches, we saw the absurd level Wawrinka played. Had they reached an even higher level -- which would be something near extra-terrestrial, people later would say, "oh, they just beat Wawrinka, who never won anything" (in this alternative universe). It makes absolutely no sense.

 

[Kieran]

The competition argument, based on results and not on the matches itself, is completely pointless. The winner pays the price for winning.

So Federer competition was lame around 2005? And after that it got suddenly better? The competition Nadal was beating in 2008/2009 was that better, or the same bunch of losers plus the loser that beat only the other losers?

This argument leads only to one conclusion: everybody sucks. It is a stupid argument that ignores what actually happens on court.

Competition can suck, but without assessing the actual matches, there is no way of measuring it.

One simple example to illustrate: let us suppose Nadal and Djokovic were even better players and managed to beat Wawrinka in the major finals they lost to him. We saw the matches, we saw the absurd level Wawrinka played. Had they reached an even higher level -- which would be something near extra-terrestrial, people later would say, "oh, they just beat Wawrinka, who never won anything" (in this alternative universe). It makes absolutely no sense.

Well we saw the 2014 Australian Open final where Rafa was lame throughout the match, and so even I’d beat him.

But the fact is that Stan was better than Andy Roddick. Murray was, too. And both were much better than Mark Phillippousis, and Baghdatis, Hewitt, and an ageing Agassi. Remember, when you mention the opposition Rafa was beating in 2008/2009, it already was much better because it still included peak Federer, and a Novak who won Australia in 2008, though he was still mentally fickle.

And by default, this opposition was harder for Federer than when he was easily winning slams, and struggling only against old Agassi and young Rafa..

 

[britbox]

Well we saw the 2014 Australian Open final where Rafa was lame throughout the match, and so even I’d beat him.

But the fact is that Stan was better than Andy Roddick. Murray was, too. And both were much better than Mark Phillippousis, and Baghdatis, Hewitt, and an ageing Agassi. Remember, when you mention the opposition Rafa was beating in 2008/2009, it already was much better because it still included peak Federer, and a Novak who won Australia in 2008, though he was still mentally fickle.

And by default, this opposition was harder for Federer than when he was easily winning slams, and struggling only against old Agassi and young Rafa..

I don't recall Federer "struggling" with Agassi too much.

However, it's amusing that you attack Federer for beating certain players, yet fail to mention some of the players Rafa lost to in GS.

At Wimbledon alone, Srichaphan, Müller (twice) , Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Dustin Brown. It's hardly Federer's fault if he makes the final and beats what's in front of him.

 

[mrzz]

Well we saw the 2014 Australian Open final where Rafa was lame throughout the match, and so even I’d beat him.

But the fact is that Stan was better than Andy Roddick. Murray was, too. And both were much better than Mark Phillippousis, and Baghdatis, Hewitt, and an ageing Agassi. Remember, when you mention the opposition Rafa was beating in 2008/2009, it already was much better because it still included peak Federer, and a Novak who won Australia in 2008, though he was still mentally fickle.

And by default, this opposition was harder for Federer than when he was easily winning slams, and struggling only against old Agassi and young Rafa..

Sorry, the level Roddick played at Wimbledon multiple times is miles above anything Murray ever could achieve. Career wise, obviously Murray's is better, but peak level is not even close.

 

[Kieran]

I don't recall Federer "struggling" with Agassi too much.

However, it's amusing that you attack Federer for beating certain players, yet fail to mention some of the players Rafa lost to in GS.

At Wimbledon alone, Srichaphan, Müller (twice) , Rosol, Darcis, Kyrgios, Dustin Brown. It's hardly Federer's fault if he makes the final and beats what's in front of him.

You must have missed the 2 US Open matches with Agassi, when Dre could barely walk. As for Rafa at Wimbledon, it was normal and not unexpected that a dominant clay court player fresh off a FO win would struggle at Wimbledon..

 

[Kieran]

Sorry, the level Roddick played at Wimbledon multiple times is miles above anything Murray ever could achieve. Career wise, obviously Murray's is better, but peak level is not even close.

Will have to disagree on that, bro. Murray had a level of stubbornness and toughness that Andy lacked, and I really admired Andy for what he did with such a limited game..

 

[mrzz]

Will have to disagree on that, bro. Murray had a level of stubbornness and toughness that Andy lacked, and I really admired Andy for what he did with such a limited game..

Well, I agree with everything you said above, but it does not contradict my original point, which is about peak level. It is not just the name, it is which version of the player is showing up.

If that was not the case Djokovic win over Nadal on RG 2015 should be the greatest win of all times... But, as you well know, it wasn't. He got a break to face Nadal in basically his worst moment. Worst version of Nadal on clay is still a pretty good player, but you know what I mean.

What if Federer was a better player and had managed to beat Cilic at the 2014 US open? The guy was simply unplayable that week. What would we be saying now? He just beat Cilic in the semis, not a big deal...

My point is, the level in a particular week matters. You cannot judge the difficulty of a given match based on a player's full career. There is a reason we often say that a player is having the week of his life...

 

[Kieran]

Well, I agree with everything you said above, but it does not contradict my original point, which is about peak level. It is not just the name, it is which version of the player is showing up.

If that was not the case Djokovic win over Nadal on RG 2015 should be the greatest win of all times... But, as you well know, it wasn't. He got a break to face Nadal in basically his worst moment. Worst version of Nadal on clay is still a pretty good player, but you know what I mean.

What if Federer was a better player and had managed to beat Cilic at the 2014 US open? The guy was simply unplayable that week. What would we be saying now? He just beat Cilic in the semis, not a big deal...

My point is, the level in a particular week matters. You cannot judge the difficulty of a given match based on a player's full career. There is a reason we often say that a player is having the week of his life...

Well, peak level Andy didn’t show up so often, compared to Murray, who was a slugger and grinder who pulled a shift. I think roddick was a much lesser player after he parted ways with Gilbert, and that was 2005, I think? He certainly gave Roger a fright in 2004 and 2009 finals, but generally once Roger began to read the serve, the march was over..

 

[atttomole]

Well, peak level Andy didn’t show up so often, compared to Murray, who was a slugger and grinder who pulled a shift. I think roddick was a much lesser player after he parted ways with Gilbert, and that was 2005, I think? He certainly gave Roger a fright in 2004 and 2009 finals, but generally once Roger began to read the serve, the march was over..

Peak Ivanisevic was a monster, as well as peak Agassi. Right? Those two were some of Sampras’ biggest rivals, if not his biggest. And Ssmpras thumped them, to use your own words.

 

[Kieran]

Peak Ivanisevic was a monster, as well as peak Agassi. Right? Those two were some of Sampras’ biggest rivals, if not his biggest. And Ssmpras thumped them, to use your own words.

Peak Agassi was a great player, but he was very erratic, and also was blessed to have a drug bust covered up, from the mid nineties. His excellent autobiography covers this shameful episode on the tour. Ivanisrvic wasn’t a great player but he was tough and honest. You probably weren’t watching tennis then, or else you’ve forgotten, but players didn’t tend to cosy up at the net after the match for a cuddle and a chaste kiss, chuffed with themselves that they lost to the big 3. They were angry and competitive. Even blokes like Rusedski, who was nobody’s idea of a champ, brazenly bloused into Wimbledon every summer declaring himself to be one of the favourites, and he was tricky and gutsy and difficult to dissuade. He made life difficult for everybody because he was fiercely competitive. And irritating. And Canadian but waving the Brit flag, which I know pissed off Pete, because Brits could share the main dressing room with the seeds, and Rusedski was a typical North American big teeth blow hard.

Times were different then. Becker was still around and potent on grass - and off it. Stich, Edberg. Stefan Edberg was a great player, very honest in his effort, always. Pat rafter was very good, another honest player, very brilliant at serve volley, rugged and dogged and hard to get rid of..

 

[atttomole]

Peak Agassi was a great player, but he was very erratic, and also was blessed to have a drug bust covered up, from the mid nineties. His excellent autobiography covers this shameful episode on the tour. Ivanisrvic wasn’t a great player but he was tough and honest. You probably weren’t watching tennis then, or else you’ve forgotten, but players didn’t tend to cosy up at the net after the match for a cuddle and a chaste kiss, chuffed with themselves that they lost to the big 3. They were angry and competitive. Even blokes like Rusedski, who was nobody’s idea of a champ, brazenly bloused into Wimbledon every summer declaring himself to be one of the favourites, and he was tricky and gutsy and difficult to dissuade. He made life difficult for everybody because he was fiercely competitive. And irritating. And Canadian but waving the Brit flag, which I know pissed off Pete, because Brits could share the main dressing room with the seeds, and Rusedski was a typical North American big teeth blow hard.

Times were different then. Becker was still around and potent on grass - and off it. Stich, Edberg. Stefan Edberg was a great player, very honest in his effort, always. Pat rafter was very good, another honest player, very brilliant at serve volley, rugged and dogged and hard to get rid of..

That was very tough competition for Sampras, with all those monsters he had to go through to win a grand slam.

 

[mrzz]

Well, peak level Andy didn’t show up so often, compared to Murray, who was a slugger and grinder who pulled a shift. I think roddick was a much lesser player after he parted ways with Gilbert, and that was 2005, I think? He certainly gave Roger a fright in 2004 and 2009 finals, but generally once Roger began to read the serve, the march was over..

2004 and 2009 were competitive in very different ways. 2004 was (IMO) one of the greatest matches I have seen level wise, while 2009... pretty much the opposite. No wonder the shot everyone remembers from the 2009 match was that botched volley...

 

[Kieran]

2004 and 2009 were competitive in very different ways. 2004 was (IMO) one of the greatest matches I have seen level wise, while 2009... pretty much the opposite. No wonder the shot everyone remembers from the 2009 match was that botched volley...

Yeah, Roddick in 2004 was super sharp, benefiting fully from Gilbert, but also more aggressive and cocky. That match hinges on a few points. The botched volley in 2009, I thought it was match over but fair play to him, he made a huge scrap of it.

Funny enough, I think if he’d won the second set, the hardest part was still ahead of him. I’d still have Federer as favourite to win. If 2004 Andy went up 2 sets, he’d have probably won pulling away..

 

[Kieran]

That was very tough competition for Sampras, with all those monsters he had to go through to win a grand slam.

Yes, it was tough enough. Things became less scrappy for top players after the changes…

 

[atttomole]

Yes, it was tough enough. Things became less scrappy for top players after the changes…

Which changes?

 

[Kieran]

Which changes?

This was discussed above. The homogenisation of surfaces, and the seeding of the top 32 players instead of 16, which lessened the prospect of upsets early on…

 

[atttomole]

This was discussed above. The homogenisation of surfaces, and the seeding of the top 32 players instead of 16, which lessened the prospect of upsets early on…

Homogenization of the surfaces helped players like Rafa. I don’t know homogenization made it easier than the 90’s though. You are making a big deal of increasing the number of seeds from 16 to 32. Below the 10th seed, I don’t think there is much of a difference.

 

[Kieran]

Homogenization of the surfaces helped players like Rafa. I don’t know homogenization made it easier than the 90’s though.

It helped all the big 3. It made the surfaces less extreme from each other, which obviously made it easier for top players than in the 80’s and 90’s. There were different cultures, completely opposite styles of play, there were players who skipped grass and players players who skipped clay. Now you can stay back and play a similar game on all surfaces, with fewer tweaks..