Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call. - Page 25 - MensTennisForums.com

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #361 of 418 (permalink) Old 03-19-2013, 07:44 PM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 994
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Topspindoctor View Post
Love them or hate them, it will be sad when these guys retire. Young/Tomic/Dimitrov/Sock competing for slams would quickly turn this sport into a fiasco WTA is experiencing right now
True.

It's unbelivable to see that this group of 25-27 years old players are completely unchallended by the younger ones.

After Del Potro, there is just nobody even close of challenging them.

There is a lost generation.
Surcouf is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #362 of 418 (permalink) Old 04-11-2013, 07:42 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Age: 30
Posts: 1,993
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Not necessarily true. Laver was 5-9 or 10, Rosewall 5-7. Had they been born 40 or more years later, chances are due to nutrition and evolution they would be a few inches taller, and therefore, stronger. Still, despite their size they were beating players taller then they were. Gonzalez was 6-2, Newcombe, Hoad, Emerson, Roche, Ashe, Passerall were 6 footers or close. With modern equipment and training techniques, great athletes of the past would be great tennis players today. The same is true of any other sport too.
in the 50s and 60s there were probably a couple of thousand (maybe 10thousands) kids between 10 and 20 playing tennis on a regular basis. In the 90s and 00s there were millions! So we can take a guess and say there were probably a lot of guys with about Lavers talent in the 90s and 00s but only 3 with Djokovic, Nadal and Federers talents
buzz is offline  
post #363 of 418 (permalink) Old 04-11-2013, 08:28 AM
Registered User
 
janko05's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 5,301
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by buzz View Post
in the 50s and 60s there were probably a couple of thousand (maybe 10thousands) kids between 10 and 20 playing tennis on a regular basis. In the 90s and 00s there were millions! So we can take a guess and say there were probably a lot of guys with about Lavers talent in the 90s and 00s but only 3 with Djokovic, Nadal and Federers talents
great point buzz
janko05 is offline  
post #364 of 418 (permalink) Old 04-22-2013, 03:19 AM
Registered User
 
Kyle_Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 9,116
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Laver would have been amazing in this era or in the 80s, 90s, or 2000s. Just like Pete would be great today with his 145 mph serve.

I hear stuff like John McEnroe would have been bad in this era, and I think, if he played in this era, he wouldn't be a serve and volleyer, he would be an aggressive baseliner. But the talent and the champion qualities would still be there.

Federer fan, writer, tennis player.
Top 10 all-time list (Open Era)
1) Federer 2) Sampras 3) Nadal 4) Laver 5) Borg
6) Rosewall 7) Agassi 8) Lendl 9) Connors 10) McEnroe
Top 10 favourite all-time list
1) Federer 2) Safin 3) Agassi 4) Sampras 5) Edberg
6) Lendl 7) Haas 8) Hewitt 9) Connors 10) Becker
Kyle_Johansen is offline  
post #365 of 418 (permalink) Old 04-30-2013, 03:29 PM
Registered User
 
Kyle_Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 9,116
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Also, Fed was being hailed as the greatest long before his Slam records. It seemed obvious he would break them in 2004-2006.

Federer fan, writer, tennis player.
Top 10 all-time list (Open Era)
1) Federer 2) Sampras 3) Nadal 4) Laver 5) Borg
6) Rosewall 7) Agassi 8) Lendl 9) Connors 10) McEnroe
Top 10 favourite all-time list
1) Federer 2) Safin 3) Agassi 4) Sampras 5) Edberg
6) Lendl 7) Haas 8) Hewitt 9) Connors 10) Becker
Kyle_Johansen is offline  
post #366 of 418 (permalink) Old 05-01-2013, 12:36 AM
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 5,004
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kyle_Johansen View Post
Also, Fed was being hailed as the greatest long before his Slam records. It seemed obvious he would break them in 2004-2006.
Federer won most of his slams in a very weak period,03-08. He couldn't even dominate a pre peak Nadal. In the 60's, which was the most competitive era of the the Pro Tour you had: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad in their prime competing against each other. Rosewall lost 11 years playing the regular slams, Laver lost 5, Gonzales 14 or 15. Whether the older players could compete against today's players is NOT the point, it is how you did against and the quality of competition of the era you played in. Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were just as victorious as Federer ever was against tougher competition on the pro tour.
thrust is offline  
post #367 of 418 (permalink) Old 05-01-2013, 12:48 AM
Registered User
 
Han Solo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Age: 39
Posts: 2,346
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Federer won most of his slams in a very weak period,03-08. He couldn't even dominate a pre peak Nadal. In the 60's, which was the most competitive era of the the Pro Tour you had: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad in their prime competing against each other. Rosewall lost 11 years playing the regular slams, Laver lost 5, Gonzales 14 or 15. Whether the older players could compete against today's players is NOT the point, it is how you did against and the quality of competition of the era you played in. Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were just as victorious as Federer ever was against tougher competition on the pro tour.
Convenient that the "strong" era started when your favourite player began to win more majors, isn't it?

I'm getting fed up with this bullshit. "Weak" this, "strong" that: Jesus fucking Christ, it sounds so idiotic.

Incidentally, how can 2003-2008 be considered "weak" when one of the best players of all time was playing at his peak? Seems like this very factor is enough to make it special.
Han Solo is offline  
post #368 of 418 (permalink) Old 05-01-2013, 06:33 AM
Banned!
 
heya's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 9,580
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

lol Fed vulture in a talentless 2003-7 era when there was no one playing well on clay, grass & hardcourt... Not even physically fit and flexible athletes in that era. At least there was no player with "16 injuries".
Those guys avoided clay, grass & indoor events. .... LMAO Strong era.

Since when did Davydenko define an era?
Yeah, Djoker had 41 match win streak. Another win streak in autumn 2012. He destroyed healthy Fed & Nadal on clay and had a good fight vs. Murray. Yet, he's weak.

Sure, boy, Fed should point his finger & cry some more. It shows how desperate he is. He thinks the Roddicks & Hewitts were "great players" too.
He needed to look like a fighter on the rainy Wimbledon grass vs. "hot" Roddick. LOL
heya is offline  
post #369 of 418 (permalink) Old 05-01-2013, 07:47 AM
ALT-0
 
Litotes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Norway
Age: 43
Posts: 56,875
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Federer won most of his slams in a very weak period,03-08. He couldn't even dominate a pre peak Nadal. In the 60's, which was the most competitive era of the the Pro Tour you had: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad in their prime competing against each other. Rosewall lost 11 years playing the regular slams, Laver lost 5, Gonzales 14 or 15. Whether the older players could compete against today's players is NOT the point, it is how you did against and the quality of competition of the era you played in. Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were just as victorious as Federer ever was against tougher competition on the pro tour.
The 60s players obviously had less competition than now. The tour was split in two. Some of the talent never played against the top players. Certainly they would have combined to make some sort of impart, winning occasionally. You can't say for instance Emerson would have lost 100% of matches against Laver, Gonzalez and Rosewall. Anyone who says Federer had less competition does so simply because they don't like him, with no logic whatsoever to back up their claim.
Litotes is offline  
post #370 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 10:30 AM
Registered User
 
Houstonko's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 2,271
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by heya View Post
lol Fed vulture in a talentless 2003-7 era when there was no one playing well on clay, grass & hardcourt... Not even physically fit and flexible athletes in that era. At least there was no player with "16 injuries".
Those guys avoided clay, grass & indoor events. .... LMAO Strong era.

Since when did Davydenko define an era?
Yeah, Djoker had 41 match win streak. Another win streak in autumn 2012. He destroyed healthy Fed & Nadal on clay and had a good fight vs. Murray. Yet, he's weak.

Sure, boy, Fed should point his finger & cry some more. It shows how desperate he is. He thinks the Roddicks & Hewitts were "great players" too.
He needed to look like a fighter on the rainy Wimbledon grass vs. "hot" Roddick. LOL
Fed pioneered the new age all court and whole season tennis that's why all look weak. The rest of the field will adjust to improve to the level required to compete. Thats where u get Djoker, Nadal, Murray.

A pioneer often make the most profits and he is still good enough to stay on the market despite his age and new entrants.
Houstonko is offline  
post #371 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 05:48 PM
Registered User
 
juan27's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Age: 28
Posts: 3,175
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Han Solo View Post
Convenient that the "strong" era started when your favourite player began to win more majors, isn't it?

I'm getting fed up with this bullshit. "Weak" this, "strong" that: Jesus fucking Christ, it sounds so idiotic.

Incidentally, how can 2003-2008 be considered "weak" when one of the best players of all time was playing at his peak? Seems like this very factor is enough to make it special.
it`s stupid with this tards trying to talk abut tennis.

if federer is a weak era champion , this era is real cracp , because this weak era champion or goat was nļ1 in this era , and is nļ2 too , won slams , masters cup and all the titles in this era too.

he won more slams than murray since 2008 to now and one or two less than djoko.

old federer and past his peak was the only who could puts harder the thing for 2011 djoko and the last year h2h was 3-2 for djoko , only one match against an old federer......

federer without nadal and with only nole and murray like main rival would have more than 18 slams for sure and much more weak iin nļ1.

murray is not even better than safin or hewitt.
juan27 is offline  
post #372 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 05:52 PM
Registered User
 
Rychu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Age: 22
Posts: 19,794
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by juan27 View Post
murray is not even better than safin or hewitt.
Peak Safin would have blown Murray out of the court
Rychu is offline  
post #373 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 05:54 PM
Registered User
 
forehandluva's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,095
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Federer won most of his slams in a very weak period,03-08. He couldn't even dominate a pre peak Nadal. In the 60's, which was the most competitive era of the the Pro Tour you had: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad in their prime competing against each other. Rosewall lost 11 years playing the regular slams, Laver lost 5, Gonzales 14 or 15. Whether the older players could compete against today's players is NOT the point, it is how you did against and the quality of competition of the era you played in. Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were just as victorious as Federer ever was against tougher competition on the pro tour.
haha your clueless i bet you say fed beat baby nadal but forget to mention the fact that laver beat grandpa pancho gonzales who was 10 years older than laver. and who laver only met when gonzales was already well past 30 years of age. and your probably speaking from reading stuff on these players rather than you actually watching them if not you wouldnt be spouting such nonsense. laver in this day and age would be like fabrice santoro at best, and no he really wouldnt be that great i mean who under 5 feet 10 has been a great in the last 20 years. laver would have little power and would not survive in the current climate of tennis. mabye in the 90s he would have success indoors and on grass but he would truly struggle now

federer fan, del potro fan and ferrer fan
forehandluva is offline  
post #374 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 06:06 PM
Registered User
 
Dark Knight's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Age: 25
Posts: 1,660
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrust View Post
Federer won most of his slams in a very weak period,03-08. He couldn't even dominate a pre peak Nadal. In the 60's, which was the most competitive era of the the Pro Tour you had: Gonzalez, Rosewall, Laver and Hoad in their prime competing against each other. Rosewall lost 11 years playing the regular slams, Laver lost 5, Gonzales 14 or 15. Whether the older players could compete against today's players is NOT the point, it is how you did against and the quality of competition of the era you played in. Laver, Rosewall, and Gonzalez were just as victorious as Federer ever was against tougher competition on the pro tour.
Keep saying that to yourself until it satisfies you. Federer has been praised by many legends as well as current players as the greatest to play the game. Period.

Regarding dominating Nadal yes he didn't. It more like he couldn't because he had a terrible match up problem against him . Lefty topspin to a single hander.

Most of the other 'great" one handers couldn't win a single set against Rafa. It was not possible for Fed to develop a two hander in the middle of his career just to face Nadal.

Why do we FALL? So we can LEARN to pick ourselves up

ROGER FEDERER

STANISLAS WAWRINKA
Dark Knight is offline  
post #375 of 418 (permalink) Old 06-06-2013, 09:32 PM
Registered User
 
Kyle_Johansen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Age: 24
Posts: 9,116
                     
Re: Roger : We are best ever, The four of us? Thatís a really difficult call.

I really don't understand this weak era crap that haters keep going on about. Most of the tennis played from 2003-2007 was awesome. It's like people hear of Baghdatis and Gonzalez being in Slam finals and because they haven't won a Slam it's a "weak era." Yet they don't actually watch the tennis those two played to reach their Slam finals. If they call it a weak era because only Federer had significant achievements, I don't know what to say. Of course Fed cleaned up at 3 of the 4 Slams and many other tournaments (18/19 finals 2006? Hello.)

But let's look at the players in that era:

Federer, Agassi, Nadal, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Haas, Blake, Coria, Gaudio, Safin, Djokovic (07), Gasquet, Kiefer, Henman.... that's a pretty decent era I think over the spa of 4-5 years.

Federer fan, writer, tennis player.
Top 10 all-time list (Open Era)
1) Federer 2) Sampras 3) Nadal 4) Laver 5) Borg
6) Rosewall 7) Agassi 8) Lendl 9) Connors 10) McEnroe
Top 10 favourite all-time list
1) Federer 2) Safin 3) Agassi 4) Sampras 5) Edberg
6) Lendl 7) Haas 8) Hewitt 9) Connors 10) Becker
Kyle_Johansen is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the MensTennisForums.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome