Ok concerning the technology this is what i think...
When i purchased my latest racquet and hit the practice courts i was just surprised with the velocity it was able to generate...my dad had always used a wooden one and when he started hitting the ball with my latest racquet all he said was that the ball comes off so easily, you don't have to hit the ball so hard as with a wooden racquet...so what i understood was that with a wooden racket obviously the serve and volley along with baseline game was the norm...but what I don't understand is that with an improved technology, its ought to be easier to serve and volley...please don't say that the baseline game has become so good that you can easily get passed and such crap cos I believe that with a great serve (of say Fed or ARod's calibre) you cud easily approach the net and chip the balls...after all tsonga did it and perhaps with better control could have walked away with th AO title this year....that's what Emma is trying to say...better technology does not imply a better talent or a pool of players...
And Huntingyou...how can you randomly say that with more population the talent gets even bigger? After all 128 players enter the field and all these 128 have to play others before they end up playing at a GS event and the winner has to play just 7 players to lift the title....what I don't understand is that just because the technology has improved do you mean to say that he automatically has to play better players? After all the champion is equipped with the same technology no?
Another thing...about Fed's mental ability....no doubt that he is mentally tough...but before the wimby this year I could have been a bit skeptical concerning Pete's edge over Fed in that department...but this year had it been Pete in the finals he would have held the serve...there's just no doubt about it....Fed's ability was to take the game to 5 sets but did not win it...yes he lost it only by a margin but Pete would have just squeezed it.
Lastly concerning our pet subject...the weak era theory...well I've said it that Fed has done a fantastic job in making the best in his conducive times....but again for perhaps myself, emma and others ARod, Hewitt, a lazy Nalby , a wasted Safin and Donkey are just not the players we'd like to see in the top 10...ok now others like Rafa( who has actually only evolved now), Nole and Murray are up there but from the early days of Fed's GS victories ie from 03 to 06...who were his main competitors in finals? ARod was mostly to be seen in the finals ,no? ARod is a guy with a booming serve and...and....hmm i can't seem to come up with many other shots in his huge 'arsenal'... Nalby never made to a GS final after that one wimby...Safin played whenever he felt like...and then Donkey was the only serious contender...boy a potential slam winner! Hewitt is just an overrated player...all he had was extremely quick legs and a decent forehand...even Andy Murray of today could easily defeat the player Hewitt was in 01-02....and the other rivals? Gonzalez, Baghdatis...man...super tough players...where is Baggy by the way? I'm not going to dissect each of Pete's rivals in the 90's.YOU SHOULD ...anyways as i have said that Fed has done very well in making the best of his chances and converting most of them into GS victories and here he stands on the brink of greatness...But the weak era theory is not something that we have just 'come up with' to diminish Fed's greatness or something...else all of us could not have agreed on the same views but then its our view
It seems that wiky is too complicate for you then I will help you. We all agree that the best FED's GS seasons are between '03- and '08 and here are his GS finals victories:
2003 Wimbledon FED-Mark Philippoussis 7-6(5), 6-2, 7-6(3)
2004 Australian Open FED- Marat Safin 7-6(3), 6-4, 6-2
2004 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 4-6, 7-5, 7-6(3), 6-4
2004 US Open FED- Lleyton Hewitt 6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0
2005 Wimbledon FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 7-6(2), 6-4
2005 US Open FED- Andre Agassi 6-3, 2-6, 7-6(1), 6-1
2006 Australian Open FED- Marcos Baghdatis 5-7, 7-5, 6-0, 6-2
2006 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 6-0, 7-6(5), 6-7(2), 6-3
2006 US Open FED- Andy Roddick 6-2, 4-6, 7-5, 6-1
2007 Australian Open FED- Fernando Gonzalez 7-6(2), 6-4, 6-4
2007 Wimbledon FED- Rafael Nadal 7-6(7), 4-6, 7-6(3), 2-6, 6-2
2007 US Open FED- Novak Djokovic 7-6(4), 7-6(2), 6-4
2008 US Open FED- Andy Murray 6-2, 7-5, 6-2
Let me see..In your "objective"
(for a FED hater sure
) post you are telling me that his main opponent was AROD..
Why he had the same amount of lost finals than Rafa..
By the way, what is wrong with AROD..Was Pioline a far better player? Still this was a main opponent of Pete in two finals..Ops
And you can tell whatever you want but I prefer Marat to the one of the (crazy) Goran (how many GS from this last one compare to Marat..Finals..semi..results on HC please)..
And then after where are all this fantastic names in the '90..What is the difference between Boris in '95 for Pete at Wimbledon and Andre in '05 for FED at the USO (a part might be that Andre was more near his best years than Boris)..I personally prefer Djoko on hard than Moya..And Gonzo and Bagda to Todd Martin..Where is all this big difference!! The presence of Chang
1993 Wimbledon Pete-Jim Courier 7-6, 7-6, 3-6, 6-3
1993 US Open Pete- Pioline 6-4, 6-4, 6-3
1994 Australian Open Pete- Todd Martin 7-6, 6-4, 6-4
1994 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 7-6, 7-6, 6-0
1995 Wimbledon Pete- Boris Becker 6-7, 6-2, 6-4, 6-2
1995 US Open Pete- Andre Agassi 6-4, 6-3, 4-6, 7-5
1996 US Open Pete Michael Chang 6-1, 6-4, 7-6
1997 Australian Open Pete Carlos Moya 6-2, 6-3, 6-3
1997 Wimbledon Pete- Cédric Pioline 6-4, 6-2, 6-4
1998 Wimbledon Pete- Goran 6-7, 7-6, 6-4, 3-6, 6-2
Continue to believe in your weak era dream: Reality and facts simply tell us that both they were facing similar competition. Even, given the presence of a Moster like Rafa, FED had definitely to face a BIG and challenging competition IMO..