I don't believe in this goat thing at all. yes, I'll give credit to Rog but I still think he was winning when the field was too weak. I mean, who were his competitors?
The courts were faster back then, Fed is better on the fast courts.
Djokovic wouldn't be able to get to many of those balls he gets to now.
Fed isn't as good as he was, he slowed down some, goes off his game for awhile and still beat Djokovic at RG and was serving for the match at the USO.
In his prime he would have blown Djokovic off the court.
Swish i think today the tennis competitors are stronger back then,apart from Nadal who was Roger up against.Davydenko & Ljubičić as 3rd & 4th Ranked are not as good as Djokovic & Murray by a long shot back then.
Of course the competitors then weren't great and I have been a strong advocate of it myself but that is nothing to take away from the genius of Fed and Fed at the age pf 30 is still giving the prime Nole a run for his money. I would know how a 25-26 year old Fed would do against the current Nole. The answer is plain simple. Murray still struggles against Fed, especially in 5 set formats in slams. Its only Rafa that's consistently beating Fed.
federer would have been holding 4 out of the last 5 slams if not for nadal and djokovic - sounds very similar to "if not for rafa, fed would be having 4 french opens by now" argument doesn't it?
2011 french open was his best french open by far.......his two victories against nadal on clay came after his so called prime and his only real resistance against rafa's throne in RG came in 2011.......
a player like tommy haas took him to 5 sets in 2006 australian open in so called his prime, baghdatis after three 5 setters pulled him into almost another 5 in the final in the same tournament.......where as slam winners like del potro are losing 1,2,3 in 2012 australian open to this "old" man who still runs like a rabbit and can last for 5 hours if needed.......
2005 fed never had the kind of arsenal which this fed has.......the only thing which isn't superior is his slightly declined movement........the fact that he pretty much doesn't care about non-slams anymore and gives his all for slams makes him a better contender at slams than in past........his problem these days is that he has to deal with two of his colleagues who happen to be all time greats as well.......
i don't mean to say that he is still at his scintillating best but just like that fast courts nonsense, this peak thing is blown out of proportion........
in another example, it's very hard to decide what nadal's peak is.......we know he hit his clay prime in 2005 and overall around 2008, but after that it's tough to conclude when he declined.......i for one as his fan might like to believe that he declined after 2010 to make excuses for all the losses to djokovic but that's just not true........
a player who is talked in GOAT discussions doesn't fade out in 3 years.......if he does, then he's not even worth talking about his own era greats, let alone of all time.......peak thing is all relative and very subjective.......there's can be no definitive time frame for things like peak.......
