Topic: Federer

[Dallas]

I'm curious Alex... what period of time are you considering Roger's reign to be the weak?  From 2004-2008 when he won all of his majors?  Just trying to get a sense of when the ATP was suppose to be weak.  Rafa won - what - about 6 of his Grand Slams during that period too.  Just curious. 

[Alex]

I'm curious Alex... what period of time are you considering Roger's reign to be the weak?  From 2004-2008 when he won all of his majors?  Just trying to get a sense of when the ATP was suppose to be weak.  Rafa won - what - about 6 of his Grand Slams during that period too.  Just curious.

Dallas, yeah I'd say 04/08. listen I do appreciate his talent but he simply had to play against  too many goofs. He didn't have any real competitors till Nadal showed up. Rog was the only champ on the tour. I don't think any sport is fun if you don't have competition. Sure, I want Nole to win majors etc. but what fun would it be if he is not challenged by Nadal, Rog and Murray.

I know how much you love Rog but really you tell me who were his competitors?

[Dallas]

I'm curious Alex... what period of time are you considering Roger's reign to be the weak?  From 2004-2008 when he won all of his majors?  Just trying to get a sense of when the ATP was suppose to be weak.  Rafa won - what - about 6 of his Grand Slams during that period too.  Just curious.

Dallas, yeah I'd say 04/08. listen I do appreciate his talent but he simply had to play against  too many goofs. He didn't have any real competitors till Nadal showed up. Rog was the only champ on the tour. I don't think any sport is fun if you don't have competition. Sure, I want Nole to win majors etc. but what fun would it be if he is not challenged by Nadal, Rog and Murray.

I know how much you love Rog but really you tell me who were his competitors?

ALL of the top 10 players right now were on the tour during that time. Novak, Rafa, Ferrer, Berdych, Fish, Tipsarivak, Murray, Tsonga.... ALL were playing during that time and are still playing.  They were young, but now compared to them, Roger is 'old'.  Even though Roger was on tour in 1998, he didn't START winning until 2004, but by then, all the top current players were already on tour as well.

I just hate it when someone tries to down grade what Roger has done.  If you try to down play what he has accomplished - then what about all of Rafa's slams during that same time?  Are you going to down play those as well?  Tennis is what it is.... You have to play who makes it through.  Even if you're the #100 ranked player in the world - if you make it through to a grand slam final - you had to be playing some great tennis to get there.  No matter who Roger had to play for his 16 grand slam wins - he came through.  The names of the folks he beat in the final are no slouches from: Philipposis, Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi, Baghdatis, Nadal, Gonzales, Djokovic, Murray, Soderling....etc.  If you're calling what he did was because of weak competition - and  then use some of the folks he has beaten to say they are in a 'strong era'?  Makes no sense?

[Dallas]

Actually, I need to count 2004-2009 since in 2009 Roger won the French and Wimbledon, and was in the final of the AO and USO....

[Alex]

Dallas, I'm not trying to down grade any of Rog's accomplishments. I just feel that had no competition at all. all the players you mentioned were simply not good enough. the question is 'was Rog that good' or were they too bad.

I mean, at the end, he had to simply beat a bunch of clowns... good for him.

I told you, I don't want even Novak to be without any competition... but it looks nobody can hurt him right now... don't know, maybe I'm a bit naive...I guess that's what great champions do, they are just that much better.

[FedFanForever]

Alex - the biggest problem for Roger is his career inability to beat a fresh, healthy Nadal. I believe he's lost 90% of the matches when Nadal is 100%.

[Dallas]

Dallas, I'm not trying to down grade any of Rog's accomplishments. I just feel that had no competition at all. all the players you mentioned were simply not good enough. the question is 'was Rog that good' or were they too bad.

I mean, at the end, he had to simply beat a bunch of clowns... good for him.

I told you, I don't want even Novak to be without any competition... but it looks nobody can hurt him right now... don't know, maybe I'm a bit naive...I guess that's what great champions do, they are just that much better.

But Alex...look at that list that I composed showing exactly who he had to beat.  Included in that list are Nadal, Novak, and Murray.  Are you calling them clowns?    I mean, Roger was winning through 2009.  That's only 3 years ago. Those guys were winning titles and slams (except Murray, of course)...but I look at that list and I wouldn't call any of those players "clowns".  They are professional tennis players and they must have been playing great enough to get to the final in the first place!  I remember when Gonzo made that AO final - he was on fire that tournament - beating everyone in his wake!  I wouldn't call him a 'clown' just because he got to the final and lost to Roger.  On and On.... I don't think you are giving any of these players the consideration that they deserve as tennis professionals.  I wouldn't call any of them 'clowns'.  Laver himself said the top 100 today is so much stronger than when he played that it's no comparision.  And if you are calling Roger's competitives "clowns"....no one in "this era" is winning slams except Nadal and Novak so is everyone else considered a "clown"?

I'm not fussing...just really trying to understand.  I have tapes of just about every Federer win during his 'hay day' and he was WINNING those titles by playing fantastic tennis.  I just hate it when people try to say he wasn't playing anyone  yet they don't say that about anyone else.  Only Roger - and that's not right.

[FedFanForever]

Dallas - the naysayer would say that Federer's CLOWN opponents ALLOWED him to play fantaische tennis.

[swish]

There was plenty of competition for Fed.
Anyone who makes the final has been playing good tennis, some of the players may not have been the best but those players making the final have played good tennis during the tournament.
 
Those players were good enough to knock Nadal out on the hard slams for years before he finally reached a slam final, Nadal is no slouch on that surface. That will give some indication that the field wasn't weak.
 
Fed made 18/19 slam finals, he faced many players who were 'hot' on the way to those finals.
This is a remarkable record in any ERA and shows a level of tennis that never dips too low.
 
Besides all of this, many past pros have said Fed is the best, not just by the slams he won but by looking at his game which goes beyond the strength of the field.
 
Fed's the maestro, I thought everyone knew that. 
 
 
 
 

[Dallas]

There was plenty of competition for Fed.
Anyone who makes the final has been playing good tennis, some of the players may not have been the best but those players making the final have played good tennis during the tournament.
 
Those players were good enough to knock Nadal out on the hard slams for years before he finally reached a slam final, Nadal is no slouch on that surface. That will give some indication that the field wasn't weak.
 
Fed made 18/19 slam finals, he faced many players who were 'hot' on the way to those finals.
This is a remarkable record in any ERA and shows a level of tennis that never dips too low.
 
Besides all of this, many past pros have said Fed is the best, not just by the slams he won but by looking at his game which goes beyond the strength of the field.
 
Fed's the maestro, I thought everyone knew that. 

 

[Alex]

Nole and Murray were simply too young and inexperienced to challenge Rog at that time. Nole should have won that final at the USO 2007 but he chocked big time. yes, Rafa was there but Rafa was simply not that good on HC. at the end it doesn't really matter. you play whoever  is in front of you. I still think that the field was too weak especially 2005/2006.

[FedFanForever]

Alex - don't worry soon enough Nadal will win a few more slams and be crowned as GOAT.

[Start da Game]

i just cannot see how hewitt, roddick, safin, old agassi can be classified in the league of nadal, djokovic, murray and del potro.......

[Alex]

Alex - there is no magical reality that has Roger playing Nadal & Djokovic at the same age.

no I get that. seriously, I'm not trying to take away anything that Rog has accomplished. It's not his fault that other players were so weak. I mean his competitors were, who? Ljubicic, old Hewitt, inconsistent Safin, inconsistent Fererro, one dimensional Roddick ....and I can go on and on but it doesn't really matter. As I said, he was playing whoever was on the other side of the net.

I just, personally didn't like that period because I knew the outcome of the match. Nadal is the only one who challenged Rog in that period. everyone else simply sucked. I still think that Rog had it easy, but hey... good for him 

[Dallas]

i just cannot see how hewitt, roddick, safin, old agassi can be classified in the league of nadal, djokovic, murray and del potro.......

Until Murray actually win a slam, you can take him out of the mix. Del p has ONE slam - ironically - the same as.......Roddick! Lol! Hewitt has slams, Safin has slams, Agassi has 8, and how many does Murray have? Oops...none right now. So today the only 2 players who really stand out in your list are Novak and Nadal. Take them away from today's players and who the heck do you have????? Don't go on "potentials" but what they have actually DONE. If we go on potentials - heck, back in Rogers's day, Roddick, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian and others HAD potential, but injuries had a place there. Sure Murray has the game, but he may Never win a slam! The only players in this generation to win slams are Nadal, Novak and one to Del Po, so this generation has a lot to prove yet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pawan89]

i just cannot see how hewitt, roddick, safin, old agassi can be classified in the league of nadal, djokovic, murray and del potro.......

Until Murray actually win a slam, you can take him out of the mix. Del p has ONE slam - ironically - the same as.......Roddick! Lol! Hewitt has slams, Safin has slams, Agassi has 8, and how many does Murray have? Oops...none right now. So today the only 2 players who really stand out in your list are Novak and Nadal. Take them away from today's players and who the heck do you have????? Don't go on "potentials" but what they have actually DONE. If we go on potentials - heck, back in Rogers's day, Roddick, Juan Carlos, Nalbandian and others HAD potential, but injuries had a place there. Sure Murray has the game, but he may Never win a slam! The only players in this generation to win slams are Nadal, Novak and one to Del Po, so this generation has a lot to prove yet!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

One could even argue that playing against a variety of players is tougher than owning one player. Nadal has now gone through Roger in 7 of his slam wins, once he had that backhand of Roger's figured out, Nadal could hobble on one leg and beat Roger, where's the competition there? Similarly, Djokovic now owns Nadal, if he beats Nadal for 10 more grand-slams will we be takling about how great Novak is for beating a 10 time grand slam champ like Nadal or will we be saying oh well he just owned one person and got lucky he had no other competition whereas someone like Roger had to go through multiple grand-slam champs and a variety of players playing different styles.

It's all in how you look at it. Fact of the matter is the slams are what they are and the players are what they are. If you look at the big picture, 90s were so strong and yet you had Pete Sampras win 14 slams and that too only on 3 surfaces - from the sound of that one could easily argue that he had no competition whatsoever for most of the decade anywhere but clay. But is that true? I don't think so.

And honestly at this point to call Del Potro and Murray better competition than Roddick and Hewitt is kinda funny. Just because they have more skills doesn't mean much, even someone like Gulbis has more skills than some of the past greats, what use is it? Also, Hewitt old? Federer played through Hewitt between 03-06 when Hewitt was the same age as him. Now Roger is OLD compared to Nadal/Djokovic, and you are calling Federer had to play old Hewitt? And Safin is inconsistent but Tsonga and Del Potro are the models of consistency?

Whatever, I have no use arguing about this, I just wanted to pitch in because Dallas actually chimed in for once and I agree with her. As far as I'm concerned, Johnny mac had the best volleys, Sampras had an amazing serve, Lendl pioneered the baseline power, Connors maximized his potential beyond anything, Nadal's physical game is brutally amazing, Djokovic's lack of weakness and solidity from every aspect is a model for the future and overall Federer's grace and style of play makes him someone I'd pick to watch if I wanted to amaze some of my non-tennis friends with how tennis is played at the highest level. Records and titles and impact on sport and consistency overall as well as a wonderful ambassador to the sport, I'll take Roger over anyone else if I had to pick one person. You all can think whatever you want

[Babblelot]

i just cannot see how hewitt, roddick, safin, old agassi can be classified in the league of nadal, djokovic, murray and del potro.......

Old Agassi is an interesting case because, despite limited play and cortisone shots in his back that enabled him to walk, he still reached the 2005 US Open final playing against "the greatest generation of players of all time".

Hmmm...or is this generation really that great? Better than Agassi's? Really?! 

[FedFanForever]

no I get that. seriously, I'm not trying to take away anything that Rog has accomplished. It's not his fault that other players were so weak. I mean his competitors were, who? Ljubicic, old Hewitt, inconsistent Safin, inconsistent Fererro, one dimensional Roddick ....and I can go on and on but it doesn't really matter. As I said, he was playing whoever was on the other side of the net.

I just, personally didn't like that period because I knew the outcome of the match. Nadal is the only one who challenged Rog in that period. everyone else simply sucked. I still think that Rog had it easy, but hey... good for him 

Alex - Hewitt is just a few months older then Roger. Seriously you have to stop beclowning yourself.

[Alex]

again, Agassi started this baseline game that Nole and other players have adopted ... players are simply getting  better. I still think that this era is tougher tho. so many rallies, it's crazy. I really like it. I mean yes, we have few dominant players at the top but it's so much fun.

as for Fed, I guess I should stop talking about his competition. as I said he was simply better than anybody else on the tour at the time. now it's Nole's era. He'll also lose his #1 at some point because he can only go down. it's life.

[Alex]

no I get that. seriously, I'm not trying to take away anything that Rog has accomplished. It's not his fault that other players were so weak. I mean his competitors were, who? Ljubicic, old Hewitt, inconsistent Safin, inconsistent Fererro, one dimensional Roddick ....and I can go on and on but it doesn't really matter. As I said, he was playing whoever was on the other side of the net.

I just, personally didn't like that period because I knew the outcome of the match. Nadal is the only one who challenged Rog in that period. everyone else simply sucked. I still think that Rog had it easy, but hey... good for him 

Alex - Hewitt is just a few months older then Roger. Seriously you have to stop beclowning yourself.

yes, but for God's sake do you remember that Hewitt had to have that hip surgery... the poor guy wasn't able to play any tennis for a long time. Layton was so unlucky. and I will beclown you if you were closer, you goof