How To Challenge The Big 3

[brokenshoelace]

Still no answer on who's the equivalent of Roddick, Safin and Nalbandian in this generation. I'll take it as the question is being dodged or that you think Dimitrov is a good as Safin, Raonic as good as Roddick, etc...

 

[brokenshoelace]

By the way, you're comparing "the modern boys" winning 2 slams in the face of an injured Nadal (2014 AO) and a washed up Federer to Safin's slams (must I remind you who he beat in both of them), Roddick and Hewitt's consistency, etc... Yeah ok. If you think the modern boys are "no worse" than Marat Safin then consider reassessing your outlook on the game. Either that or you must think the world of the modern generation, to put them on equal levels as Marat.

Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Haas, Gonzalez, Blake, Ferrero. You think the current generation is as deep, accomplished, or talented? Yeah ok.

 

[Kieran]

Buddy, if the dummy mantra is that Federer is goat because 17>>>14, based simply on figures, then his generation don't stack up at all, because they have none. Nada. Rien. Safin wasn't even great opposition to himself. Was he super talented? Of course, but was he great opposition to Federer? Really?

Was Nalbandian? Was Hewitt? Roddick? Gonzo? Baggy? Fozzy Bear?

All great players who were elite opposition? :Nono

At least the kids today (+ Stan) have got some wins. And they don't only have one great player, to beat, they usually have more than one. And although Federer is fading (very slowly, it seems) he still won reached two MS finals last summer, winning one, so Marin did well to batter him in the U.S. Semis. In the other semi, Nole got taken down by Nishi, who's a game lad.

Who was doing similar stuff ten years ago? You say they were more talented then, I say that may have been but they had less balls, and since it's balls and not talent alone that win things, then this generation have to be seen as being at least as good as, but definitely no worse, than the chaps Federer routinely dispatched, with them all grinning merrily at the net after it.

And no, nobody said Dimi was good as anybody...

 

[brokenshoelace]

His generation don't have figures but this generation does? Who? Stan? Newsflash, he's 30 or so. He's not "this generation." And regardless, I can't see how you can diminish Safin but "praise" Stan. Stan has literally nothing on his side if we make the comparison between the two. I have no idea what you're on about when nothing supports the claim that this gen is as good as Roger's. Not talent, not consisyency, not figures and titles. Nothing.

 

[Federberg]

I see this thread has deteriorated already, and only 2 pages in... :lolz: I'm not even going to bother

 

[Kieran]

His generation don't have figures but this generation goes? Who? Stan? Newsflash, he's 30 or so. He's not "this generation." And regardless, I can't see how you can diminish Safin but "praise" Stan. Stan has literally nothing on his side if we make the comparison between the two. I have no idea what you're on about when nothing supports the claim that this gen is as good as Roger's. Not talent, not consisyency, not figures and titles. Nothing.

Glad we agree bro, both generations have virtually nothing. Both equally "effective."

I do hate it when we fall out... :hug

 

[britbox]

Really Kieran?

Hewitt and Nalbandian had Federer's number for a good while. To say the weren't a challenge is ignorant to be honest. They were a challenge... a challenge that he overcame and then added daylight later. Go watch some Federer/Nalbandian matches and then maybe revisit your comments.

Hewitt won 2 majors, made two other slam finals and spent 80 weeks at #1
Safin won 2 majors, made two other slam finals and made #1
Roddick won a major, made #1
Ferrero won a major, made #1

How can you possibly compare the current crop - Kei, Dimitrov, Raonic.. et al favourably with those guys as it stands? Safin may have been an airhead but he made 4 grand slam finals and won 4 master titles upto the age of 25. Any of the current crop would be licking their chops at that kind of resume...

 

[Kieran]

Think of it logically, brother, and it'll help you with your mild confusion on this one. Hewitt had Federers number until Roger came of age, and then what? He barely won sets, and certainly didn't win a match until a couple years ago, when the war was long lost. When and where was he a threat to Federer between 2003-present? Nalbandian? Like Safin, he wasn't even a good threat to his own deviant side.

The question is, were the generation of players who challenged Federer/Nadal ten years ago better than now? It can't be shown that they were because they won nothing. Safin showed what he could do in Oz in 2005, but really, Federer enjoyed playing Safin. He wasn't a threat.

Nowadays the chasing group - and yes, despite his age, Wawrinka is among them - have as much or as little success, and they've been up against Fedal and Djoker and occasionally Murray. It might be said that Federer was super-dominant for years and now nobody is, but in those years Federer was virtually unchallenged at 3 slams, whereas today the top is more heavy, so still we expect a Big 3 + 1 player to win any major.

Except nowadays, the field have started to pick off the top players. They stick to the task better. Nobody is championing Dimi, or saying he's as good as Safin. But what's very clear is, the game is less predictable, and of the last five majors we've had 2 non-3 players win them.

Are they better than ten years ago? I didn't say that. I said they're as good - or as bad - as them. This is backed up clearly by the results...

 

[britbox]

^ No it's not backed up by results - because when you go back to 2002/2003 you had an emerging bunch of guys who all won slams, all hit #1 and the competition was solid. This was Federer's peer group. Everyone was excited and the future looked rosy.

Like I said in the original post, all these guys won majors in either their late teens or early twenties. The fact that Federer emerged from that group as uber-dominant player and ended up turning around all the head to heads and dominating the sport is a reflection of what a great player he was - not that his peer group was particularly weak. Hell, even a year or so ago I think the slam draws were heavily featuring players 30+ in years.

Wawrinka is not one of the young guns by any stretch of the imagination - he's a seasoned veteran.

So Hewitt was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it.... Nalbandian was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it. Like it or not, they were challenges and the challenge helped Roger develop into the dominant player he became. It might suit your argument to ignore it, but that's how it played out.

 

[brokenshoelace]

His generation don't have figures but this generation goes? Who? Stan? Newsflash, he's 30 or so. He's not "this generation." And regardless, I can't see how you can diminish Safin but "praise" Stan. Stan has literally nothing on his side if we make the comparison between the two. I have no idea what you're on about when nothing supports the claim that this gen is as good as Roger's. Not talent, not consisyency, not figures and titles. Nothing.

Glad we agree bro, both generations have virtually nothing. Both equally "effective."

I do hate it when we fall out... :hug

No falling out. We've argued dozens of times. But I think the above is egregious. You're ignoring numbers and facts, willingly I might add.

 

[britbox]

Nick Kyrgios might be the wildcard that steps up. I think it'll take a couple of years at least, but he's incrementally adding scalps and hopefully consistency will follow.

 

[Kieran]

His generation don't have figures but this generation goes? Who? Stan? Newsflash, he's 30 or so. He's not "this generation." And regardless, I can't see how you can diminish Safin but "praise" Stan. Stan has literally nothing on his side if we make the comparison between the two. I have no idea what you're on about when nothing supports the claim that this gen is as good as Roger's. Not talent, not consisyency, not figures and titles. Nothing.

Glad we agree bro, both generations have virtually nothing. Both equally "effective."

I do hate it when we fall out... :hug

No falling out. We've argued dozens of times. But I think the above is egregious. You're ignoring numbers and facts, willingly I might add.

What numbers and facts am I ignoring? That Hewitt was #1 before 2003? That Safin was #1 in late 2000? The discussion is about whether the current generation of also-rans are as bad or as good as the bunch Federer staved off once he hit the top. Statistically, they're more or less the same. I'm not saying they're better, and nor have I, but even when we factor in Safins obvious abilities, for example, or Daveed, that only condemns them more, because they were utterly negligent in their abilities. It doesn't make them more worthy of praise than Nishi or Stan, or Cilic...

 

[Kieran]

Nick Kyrgios might be the wildcard that steps up. I think it'll take a couple of years at least, but he's incrementally adding scalps and hopefully consistency will follow.

That's it. He's the next generation bloke who might jump into the gap. Others can be caretakers or transitional opportunists but Nick might get the whole package together and still be there in six or seven years. But he has a lot to learn...

 

[Federberg]

I find it difficult to reconcile the Big 3 being called all time greats and their competition being labelled as a weak era. Either the Big 3 are who we think they are, therefore their competition isn't quite as bad as we think they are, or the Big 3 aren't as good as they're made out to be

This is a misunderstanding and distortion of what I wrote (assuming you are responding to my post). I didn't say the "competition" was weak, but the younger generation is. Or do you disagree that the generation that includes Nishikori, Raonic, Dimitrov, Tomic etc isn't weak?

Sorry Dude, I didn't realise you had directed a question my way. I'll answer (although I find the whole to and fro a bit same 'ol ). Yes I do think you can't have your cake and eat it. Either the Big 3 are that good or their competition is poor. It's simple logic. This is the same stuff that was pushed against Roger when he started to dominate. In hindsight we look back now and (most of us) give due respect to Hewitt, Safin, Roddick et al. These were exceptionally good players but in Federer there was an all time great, if not THE all time great. All you have to do is observe how good Roger was at his peak to appreciate that it wasn't that Hewitt or Safin were actually poor. We might be making the same mistake again with this current generation, time will judge. But (and this is giving a nod to how the debate has evolved), it is mind boggling that anyone can currently compare the current competition (excluding the Big 3 of course), to who Roger had to face when he came up. That is so outside logic I can only assume an agenda behind it. Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero are superior to anyone outside of the Big 3 and Murray, I can't understand how anyone would take a position opposing that view puzzled:cover

 

[brokenshoelace]

Glad we agree bro, both generations have virtually nothing. Both equally "effective."

I do hate it when we fall out... :hug

No falling out. We've argued dozens of times. But I think the above is egregious. You're ignoring numbers and facts, willingly I might add.

What numbers and facts am I ignoring? That Hewitt was #1 before 2003? That Safin was #1 in late 2000? The discussion is about whether the current generation of also-rans are as bad or as good as the bunch Federer staved off once he hit the top. Statistically, they're more or less the same. I'm not saying they're better, and nor have I, but even when we factor in Safins obvious abilities, for example, or Daveed, that only condemns them more, because they were utterly negligent in their abilities. It doesn't make them more worthy of praise than Nishi or Stan, or Cilic...

That Safin won a slam by beating PRIME Roger at the absolute height of his powers along the way, and reached two other finals? That he won multiple Masters along the way?

That Hewitt reached multiple finals beyond the two slams that he won before Roger broke through?

That Roddick reached a crap ton of slam finals and won his first major AFTER Roger broke through?

Do you see Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic and even Cilic doing this in today's game?

 

[Kieran]

No falling out. We've argued dozens of times. But I think the above is egregious. You're ignoring numbers and facts, willingly I might add.

What numbers and facts am I ignoring? That Hewitt was #1 before 2003? That Safin was #1 in late 2000? The discussion is about whether the current generation of also-rans are as bad or as good as the bunch Federer staved off once he hit the top. Statistically, they're more or less the same. I'm not saying they're better, and nor have I, but even when we factor in Safins obvious abilities, for example, or Daveed, that only condemns them more, because they were utterly negligent in their abilities. It doesn't make them more worthy of praise than Nishi or Stan, or Cilic...

That Safin won a slam by beating PRIME Roger at the absolute height of his powers along the way, and reached two other finals? That he won multiple Masters along the way?

That Hewitt reached multiple finals beyond the two slams that hew on before Roger broke through?

That Roddick reached a crap ton of slam finals and won his first major AFTER Roger broke through?

Do you see Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic and even Cilic doing this in today's game?

None of which is the issue. Was Safin or Hewitt ever a reasonable threat to Roger, apart from the one time he showed us what might have been?

Were the class of that era more effective in threatening the status quo? Of course they weren't. For all their talent, they won feck all. Roger hoovered them up, and even his only viable threat was a youngster who wasn't even a factor at two of the majors. What do we have now? Slams won by outliers, and Darcis, Rosol and Stakhovsky throwing in upsets. The group today are no less effective than the boys who Roger routinely dismissed, with smiles all round...

 

[Kieran]

^ No it's not backed up by results - because when you go back to 2002/2003 you had an emerging bunch of guys who all won slams, all hit #1 and the competition was solid. This was Federer's peer group. Everyone was excited and the future looked rosy.

Like I said in the original post, all these guys won majors in either their late teens or early twenties. The fact that Federer emerged from that group as uber-dominant player and ended up turning around all the head to heads and dominating the sport is a reflection of what a great player he was - not that his peer group was particularly weak. Hell, even a year or so ago I think the slam draws were heavily featuring players 30+ in years.

Wawrinka is not one of the young guns by any stretch of the imagination - he's a seasoned veteran.

So Hewitt was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it.... Nalbandian was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it. Like it or not, they were challenges and the challenge helped Roger develop into the dominant player he became. It might suit your argument to ignore it, but that's how it played out.

Nalbandian wasn't a challenge. He reached one slam final in his whole career - and again, this was before Roger hit 21. So when and where was Nalbandian a challenge? Up until the moment Roger challenged him?

Hewitt was like Jim Courier, a caretaker, who once Sampras hit his stride, vanished. If you think that Hewitt winning five sets over the course of 15 matches post-2003 constitutes a threat to Federer, then I don't know what you might decide to call a one-sided rivalry: maybe the one with Roddick?

The fact that these blokes did something before Federer came of age is irrelevant. They didn't disturb him after this. Now, you may argue that this is because he glows in the dark, can levitate while eating three shredded wheats, but it still doesn't suggest to anybody watching that they constituted a threat to his serene world.

They didn't. They were ineffective.

The modern bunch of lads maybe no better, but at the same time, they're no more ineffective...

 

[brokenshoelace]

What numbers and facts am I ignoring? That Hewitt was #1 before 2003? That Safin was #1 in late 2000? The discussion is about whether the current generation of also-rans are as bad or as good as the bunch Federer staved off once he hit the top. Statistically, they're more or less the same. I'm not saying they're better, and nor have I, but even when we factor in Safins obvious abilities, for example, or Daveed, that only condemns them more, because they were utterly negligent in their abilities. It doesn't make them more worthy of praise than Nishi or Stan, or Cilic...

That Safin won a slam by beating PRIME Roger at the absolute height of his powers along the way, and reached two other finals? That he won multiple Masters along the way?

That Hewitt reached multiple finals beyond the two slams that hew on before Roger broke through?

That Roddick reached a crap ton of slam finals and won his first major AFTER Roger broke through?

Do you see Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic and even Cilic doing this in today's game?

None of which is the issue. Was Safin or Hewitt ever a reasonable threat to Roger, apart from the one time he showed us what might have been?

Were the class of that era more effective in threatening the status quo? Of course they weren't. For all their talent, they won feck all. Roger hoovered them up, and even his only viable threat was a youngster who wasn't even a factor at two of the majors. What do we have now? Slams won by outliers, and Darcis, Rosol and Stakhovsky throwing in upsets. The group today are no less effective than the boys who Roger routinely dismissed, with smiles all round...

In Kieran land, players' merits are not measured by their accomplishments, but by how many times they've beaten (or failed to beat) the player he despises the most.

So you see, let's say we have two crop of players: A and B.

Crop A never really got the better of the dominant player on a consistent basis and were thoroughly dominated, but they still managed to win slams, masters and reached multiple finals.

Crop B just flat out never did anything.

Apparently, both crops are "equally bad" even though this is factually incorrect on every level since one crop outperformed the other significantly, based on tournament results.

I legitimately feel like I'm arguing with Cali.

 

[Kieran]

That Safin won a slam by beating PRIME Roger at the absolute height of his powers along the way, and reached two other finals? That he won multiple Masters along the way?

That Hewitt reached multiple finals beyond the two slams that hew on before Roger broke through?

That Roddick reached a crap ton of slam finals and won his first major AFTER Roger broke through?

Do you see Dimitrov, Nishikori, Raonic and even Cilic doing this in today's game?

None of which is the issue. Was Safin or Hewitt ever a reasonable threat to Roger, apart from the one time he showed us what might have been?

Were the class of that era more effective in threatening the status quo? Of course they weren't. For all their talent, they won feck all. Roger hoovered them up, and even his only viable threat was a youngster who wasn't even a factor at two of the majors. What do we have now? Slams won by outliers, and Darcis, Rosol and Stakhovsky throwing in upsets. The group today are no less effective than the boys who Roger routinely dismissed, with smiles all round...

In Kieran land, players' merits are not measured by their accomplishments, but by how many times they've beaten (or failed to beat) the player he despises the most.

So you see, let's say we have two crop of players: A and B.

Crop A never really got the better of the dominant player on a consistent basis and were thoroughly dominated, but they still managed to win slams, masters and reached multiple finals.

Crop B just flat out never did anything.

Apparently, both crops are "equally bad" even though this is factually incorrect on every level since one crop outperformed the other significantly, based on tournament results.

I legitimately feel like I'm arguing with Cali.

I dunno, you sound like Cali yourself, trying to pass Nalbandian off as tough guy threat to Roger. :cover

I'm trying to find their accomplishments and you're heading back into the 18th century looking for them. Did they disturb Federer post-2003?

Oh yeah, one time. In 2005. A match which only highlights how deficient Safin was a challenger, because outside that one match, from 2002 onwards he played 19 sets against Roger over 7 matches...and won one set. :cover

Tough challenge. :cover

As for Crop A and Crop B, is Crop B the ones who took two of the last five majors? Is that the opposition now, or back in Federer's day, when the only slam he didn't cruise through was Paris?

But you're beginning to sound a little lost - a little desperate - when you resort to personal attacks, buddy. Stick with the facts. The facts add up to the challengers to Federer not challenging him any more than the group of youngsters and also-rans we have now. The facts back this up. These guys won feck all after Roger rose. Those are their accomplishments there. Them's the facts.

Why don't you believe them?

And as I have to keep repeating, I'm not saying the current players are better. No, I didn't say this. I'm just saying, we shouldn't romanticise a bunch of pros who lived off scraps, and criticise the current crop for doing the same... :nono

 

[brokenshoelace]

I dunno, you sound like Cali yourself, trying to pass Nalbandian off as tough guy threat to Roger. :cover

Actually, given the amount of times you're bringing up Nalbandian since he's an easy target, you're sounding like Cali yourself. I specifically focused on Hewitt, Safin and Roddick in my last few points. But of course i'm not surprised you'll hang on to the one guy who could offer you a hint of a solid argument.

I'm trying to find their accomplishments and you're heading back into the 18th century looking for them. Did they disturb Federer post-2003?

In Kieran land, accomplishment = disturbing Federer. Winning masters, reaching slam finals, being consistent is not an accomplishment.

Oh, but of course, you'll say these aren't significant accomplishments, and I'd agree...except it's still far more significant than anything the current generation's done.

As for Crop A and Crop B, is Crop B the ones who took two of the last five majors? Is that the opposition now, or back in Federer's day, when the only slam he didn't cruise through was Paris?

Ah yes. After a whole year of diminishing Wawrinka's slam win, now, because the argument suits you, it suddenly has a lot of merit. Newsflash, but Wawrinka beating Nadal who hurt his back during the match, and Cilic beating a washed up Federer is NOT THE SAME as having to come up against the greatest player in the history of the game (which really is what eats you up about all of this) in his heyday. The single most dominant tennis player in history. Not, the same. You're comparing Hewitt and Roddick's failure to topple a juggernaut to...Cilic beating a 32 year old washed up has been and Wawrinka's anti-climactic AO win? OK sure.

But you're beginning to sound a little lost - a little desperate

Actually, I am desperate. I'm desperately trying to understand how such an intelligent man could seriously spew such nonsense for so many years and talk himself into believing it while seemingly ignoring all facts...and no, I'm not talking about Cali.

Let me cut to the chase:

Is Roddick a better, more accomplished player than Raonic? Is Hewitt a better player, more accomplished player than Nishikori? Is Safin a better, more accomplished player than Cilic? Is Nalbandian (there, I brought him up) a better, more accomplished player than Dimitrov?

The answer to the above is pretty obvious. Just how that amounts to "equally bad" is absolutely beyond me. I rest my case and move on. You haven't changed your mind about this in years, you won't now. But your position is indefensible.