11943 said:
Broken_shoelace wrote:
If there is one draw back to Roger still being great at 34, it’s that people forgot just how great he was in his prime. They see him playing great now and assume he was only a marginally better then. He was ridiculously better, which is actually saying something.
i just hate some of your simpleton arguments, they are lazy and lack thought. There is no telling how 04-07 Roger would’ve fared against 15 Djokovic. 18 year old Nadal beat him 3,3 on hard courts in 04, baby Novak beat a him on hards in 07 and baby Murray beat him in 06. What does this tell us? Shall i dare say that if baby Nadal, baby Novak and baby Murray could beat prime Roger, 34 year old Roger would be lucky to get games from them today? We know that’s not true. One the other side of the same token, we also can’t say ‘If Roger is beating them today, imagine 04-06 Roger’. My point is, it’s not thats simple and we can argue it both ways. The game has changed, Roger’s game has changed and these simpleton arguments really hold no water. If we could transport 15 Djokovic back to 04, he could very well own that Roger. Roger was more consistent but played differently and the more defensive, tactical, consistent game he played back then would probably not match up great against Djokovic. Through the years Roger has become much more aggressive and even changed his racquets. Even though he’s more inconsistent today, he employs a more rhythm breaking style which i believe is more effective against Novak. We really don’t know how 2015 Novak would fare against 04-07 Federer. Using simpleton arguments we can say either ‘He would dominate him since baby Novak was starting to beat prime Roger in 07’ or ‘Roger would own him as 34 year old Roger is occasionally beating Djokovic’. Which simpleton argument here wins? Answer is, we have no clue and it could go both ways depending on how you look at it.
You accuse me of simpleton argument about a Federer-Djokovic match-up and literally a sentence later you bring up how Nadal beat Federer, which has nothing to do with anything.
You call my arguments simple, I call yours borderline ridiculous. Yes, we'll never know for sure who would win between 2006 Fed and 2015 Djokovic on fast hards, but when I see 2015 34 year old Federer, with inferior movement, inferior backhand and inferior forehand, taking Djokovic in the form of his life to the woodshed in Dubai, Cinci and the WTF, I can formulate a pretty decent assessment as to what 2006 Federer, who dominated the US Open like no other (save for Pete) would have done. Federer is the greatest fast hards players I've ever seen.
The argument that 2015 Fed, in spite of being a singificantly inferior player to his 2006 self has a better chance at beating Novak now than he did then verges on stupid, especially when it's based on the premise that he shortens points now. Well, could it be that he shortens them now because he can't rally with Novak these days, and he actually could in 2006? Now, Novak is a superior baseliner than even prime Federer, but on fast hards, with Fed's slice and forehand, and overall superior offense? And Fed's serve? THAT Federer? He couldn't shorten points then? If he didn't then, maybe it's because he didn't need to since he was the best baseliner in the world? Did you stop to think about that? You're telling me that 2006 Federer wouldn't be able to play the game Roger is now, only much better? No? Not even with more athleticism, foot speed, better footwork, and the greatest shot in the history of tennis (his forehand)? Yeah, you're right. Simpleton arguments.
