The Federer Decline Thread - Page 77 - MensTennisForums.com

MensTennisForums.com

MenstennisForums.com is the premier Men's Tennis forum on the internet. Registered Users do not see the above ads.Please Register - It's Free!

View Poll Results: Do you agree with Pete?

No. I think Federer's decline is a fact and he's not winning any major in the future. 38 17.35%
I kinda agree... He's in a great moment, but the other 2 guys are too good. No more slams for Feddy 45 20.55%
I totally agree. Fed's still playing great tennis and he'll probably win another major 104 47.49%
Hello. I'm Rod Laver and my records are intact. Suck it losers. 32 14.61%
Voters: 219. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

Old 08-17-2012, 06:20 PM   #1141
country flag Orka_n
Registered User
 
Orka_n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17,211
Orka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
The noticeable fact is that Federer didn't collect 10 slams as quickly as he did when facing his weak field of the past.
You have not said anything to support that the past mugs would fare any better in the slams against prime Novak/Nadal/Murray.

I also see the excuse of Federer declining as soon as he started losing more frequently in the slams still being used.
Looks like a bunch of deluded fans refusing to admit that the field finally got strong enough to prevent one man from winning so much compared to the usual mugs that provided little to no resistance.

Federer lost to Roddick and Haas this year. By your faulty logic, they are older and yet are managing to beat Federer now. Does that mean prime Roddick would have destroyed the current Federer in most of their matches? Of course not. Any mug can have his day.
The current field is stronger and that's a fact.



Being number #1 by playing more 500 ATP or 250 is nothing impressive. Nadal could play more clay tournaments and have a much bigger tally of points to boost his rankings.



Looking at it logically, Nadal made 2 hardcourt slam finals last year and 2 masters finals on hardcourts. Meaning if not for Novak, Rafa would probably have 2 USO and 2 AO titles right now along with Miami/IW titles. You can't belittle the player that has owned Fed in slams for 5 years straight because it makes Fed look even more pathetic.
This guy is like SdG but with better grammar.
__________________
I had strings
but now I'm free
there are
no strings
on me
Orka_n is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 08-17-2012, 06:30 PM   #1142
country flag Greatness
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Greatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sophocles View Post
One more reply and then you're going on the ignore list.

I offered a very striking piece of evidence in favour of past mugs doing better against Nole/Rafa/Muzz than they did against prime Fed: the fact that present mugs do better against those guys than past mugs did against Fed.

Fed started losing more against the rest of the field in 2008. What part of that sentence do you not understand? A worse player is more likely to lose against worse players.

Now piss off & stop trolling.
So your only stance is that Fed started losing only when he declined, which is typical fanboy banter to hide the fact that he was outplayed due to a stronger field.

Also, those mugs you speak of have beaten Federer even though they're older now. Once again, does that mean at their best they're better than the current Federer? If you can admit that prime Roddick/Bag/Gonzo would destroy the current Federer then you would have some semblance of a point, otherwise, dancing on pointless indications that current top players lose to mugs isn't making a case for you at all. All the past greats lost to mugs, that's a fact.

Now GTFO and dwell on your limited perspective.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
No body is belittling nadull . He did what he was supposed to do beat fed on conditions that favor him that's not up for debate. I agree nadull maintained the status quo.
My point is he was through out his career a practical No- show on conditions that favor fed. For one reason or the other other.
My second point the that nadull is still in his Prime but reverting back to his old clay court self . Yes he lost to Novak but he also lost to ferrer n rosol , so he is inconsistent .
There are on average 20 tourneys a year he lost to Novak 7 times won on clay like 7 times . So who beat him for the balance of tourney. Yes u guess it Mugd young n old.
For 2 years that's like 35-40 tournys
You are belittling him by saying "conditions that favor him". Grass doesn't favor Federer? Fed has 7 Wimbledons and 5 AO and you want to ignore that and pretend that conditions only favored Rafa on those surfaces? Nonsense.

Careers evolve and change. 18 year old Rafa beat prime Federer at Miami 2004 and 20 year old Rafa beat him in Dubai 2006 when he was still a mug on hardcourts. Prime Fed lost twice to a clay courter on hardcourts. Let me guess, the conditions didn't favor Federer back then too? GTFO.
Greatness is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:33 PM   #1143
country flag nastoff
LIFETIME MUG
 
nastoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 36,360
nastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond reputenastoff has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by manadrainer View Post
This.

In 2008 Fed lost to Nadal/Djokovic at Slams, but he also lost to mugs pretty much everywhere. This is why we consider the decline starting in 2008. Losing to Nadal was expected (ok, maybe not at wimblodon but it was a tight 5-setter during Nadal absolute peak). Fed losing to mugs he dominated though makes 2008 the year the decline started.
The beginning of the decline was 2007 and his back-to-back loses to Canas.
nastoff is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:36 PM   #1144
country flag Singularity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,902
Singularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
Fed is always declining even though in his prime he lost to mugs.
In his prime Federer lost to only three players in the slams: Nadal, Safin and Kuerten. He only lost once outside clay.

That comes back to the point about Federer not being tested. If no one could challenge him, then we can't determine what his limits actually were.

Even if we agree the era was weak, it doesn't settle anything at all.

Quote:
His achievements are severely tarnished by his constant failures against Rafa in the slams, which clearly proves that one man alone can easily dominate a weak field since Rafa dominated Federer who was collecting slams easily against mugs in the previous years.
Federer always struggled against Nadal (on slow surfaces anyway), even when he was dominating everyone else, and even when Nadal himself couldn't dominate the rest of the field.

That suggests his problem is with Nadal in particular. One player is not a field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
So your only stance is that Fed started losing only when he declined, which is typical fanboy banter to hide the fact that he was outplayed due to a stronger field.
The point is that the players he started losing to belonged to the weaker era he previously dominated! Eg. Rodick, Fish, Stepanek, Karlovic, Blake.

Last edited by Singularity : 08-17-2012 at 06:42 PM.
Singularity is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:40 PM   #1145
country flag Looner
Registered User
 
Looner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 12,218
Looner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond reputeLooner has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orka_n View Post
This guy is like SdG but with better grammar.
Yup, I think you've just about hit the mark. If I had time to waste, I'd certainly read his posts. Seeing as I don't, I won't.
__________________

The "Who plays tennis?" thread


On winning DC and its overall importance in the discussion for all-time greats
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orbis View Post
Davis Cup should never have really mattered in the GOAT discussion anyway since it's a team event. If you're talking about the GOAT singles player then you should mainly look at individual results.
If some unknown talent came out of some random tiny country (no chance to win DC) and won 20 slams, no one would give a single shit if that player didn't have DC. The fact is, success in DC is largely determined by what country you come from or play for in the first place, which most players haven't had any control over.
Looner is online now View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:40 PM   #1146
country flag chenx15
Registered User
 
chenx15's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Age: 59
Posts: 1,693
chenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond reputechenx15 has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Greatness Peaking at the right time! got to hand it to him. he is definitely crushing the all time greats of MTF. Weak era this new batch of MTFs
__________________
the Fed vs anderson IW 2014
Quote:
Originally Posted by SheepleBuster View Post
Fed ... don't F this up. You got the break. Just finish this. I got work tomorrow, I got kids... wife needs affection. Give me a break man.
chenx15 is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:49 PM   #1147
country flag Greatness
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Greatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
In his prime Federer lost to only three players in the slams: Nadal, Safin and Kuerten. He only lost once outside clay.

That comes back to the point about Federer not being tested. If no one could challenge him, then we can't determine what his limits actually were.

Even if we agree the era was weak, it doesn't settle anything at all.


Federer always struggled against Nadal (on slow surfaces anyway), even when he was dominating everyone else, and even when Nadal himself couldn't dominate the rest of the field.

That suggests his problem is with Nadal in particular. One player is not a field.

If nobody could challenge him except a teenage clay courter then we know he was facing mugs most of the time. The record in slams of those mugs Federer was dominating also says a lot of how inconsistent they were in general.
Greatness is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:49 PM   #1148
country flag Mark Lenders
Registered User
 
Mark Lenders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 13,751
Mark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond reputeMark Lenders has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Seriously man, just give it up.

Let's imagine you could somehow prove Federer played in a weak era. You won't, but for argument's sake let's say you did. What exactly would that prove?

Nothing. It's not like Federer can be blamed for the supposed shortcomings of his opponents. You have to beat whoever is in front of you and that's what Federer did in his prime and what he's doing even now at 30+. Stop trying to discredit his achievements, no one reasonable will buy into that nonsense.
Mark Lenders is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:52 PM   #1149
country flag Singularity
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 1,902
Singularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond reputeSingularity has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
If nobody could challenge him except a teenage clay courter then we know he was facing mugs most of the time. The record in slams of those mugs Federer was dominating also says a lot of how inconsistent they were in general.
You're missing the point. Lets agree with you that they were mugs. What does that prove about Federer's level? Nothing.

To repeat again:

If no one could challenge Federer, then we can't determine what his limits actually were.
Singularity is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:56 PM   #1150
country flag Greatness
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Greatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lenders View Post
Seriously man, just give it up.

Let's imagine you could somehow prove Federer played in a weak era. You won't, but for argument's sake let's say you did. What exactly would that prove?

Nothing. It's not like Federer can be blamed for the supposed shortcomings of his opponents. You have to beat whoever is in front of you and that's what Federer did in his prime and what he's doing even now at 30+. Stop trying to discredit his achievements, no one reasonable will buy into that nonsense.
There is nothing to give up here. I'm only making a simple point about the merit of success and how a weak field helped Federer look a lot better than he actually is. Whether or not I stop posting or replying to the simpleton Fed fanboys doesn't mean I would give up, it would only mean I've had enough fun reading their silly excuses.
Greatness is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 06:59 PM   #1151
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 45
Posts: 3,516
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness View Post
So your only stance is that Fed started losing only when he declined, which is typical fanboy banter to hide the fact that he was outplayed due to a stronger field.

Also, those mugs you speak of have beaten Federer even though they're older now. Once again, does that mean at their best they're better than the current Federer? If you can admit that prime Roddick/Bag/Gonzo would destroy the current Federer then you would have some semblance of a point, otherwise, dancing on pointless indications that current top players lose to mugs isn't making a case for you at all. All the past greats lost to mugs, that's a fact.

Now GTFO and dwell on your limited perspective.



You are belittling him by saying "conditions that favor him". Grass doesn't favor Federer? Fed has 7 Wimbledons and 5 AO and you want to ignore that and pretend that conditions only favored Rafa on those surfaces? Nonsense.

Careers evolve and change. 18 year old Rafa beat prime Federer at Miami 2004 and 20 year old Rafa beat him in Dubai 2006 when he was still a mug on hardcourts. Prime Fed lost twice to a clay courter on hardcourts. Let me guess, the conditions didn't favor Federer back then too? GTFO.
I am just stating facts . Nadull predominantly wins when conditions favor him . Clay and slow bouncing HC. Is that to say . He can't beat fed on a favorable surface NO of course not. He could beat fed anywhere any time but generally does it on conditions that aid his retrieving and top spin .
Yes fed has won 4 AO . But they changed the surface from rebound ace before 2009. When fed had won 3/4 at the AO. The current surface is slower and higher bouncing favoring nadull and grinders. There is a reason grinders do good at the AO as well it HOT. So something skill takes a back seat to raw physicality.
So teenage nadull beat Prime fed so what? Old fed beat Prime nadull at IW on Nadulls best HC masters. Fed also beat nadull on clay in BO3. Fed also had match points against nadull at Rome in a best of 5 on clay before he choked the match away.
All time greats can compete against the best and win and vice versa. Fed is still 2-1 against nadull on Grass.
My point still stand nadull is a No-show on Feds "tour" conditions favor him.
From 2005- till present post RG they is like 6/7 compulsory tourneys.
Nadull was a GS champion in 2005 there have been like 50 + tournies played from 2005-2012.
Of that nadull has made a finals appearance and waited on fed who didn't show like 6/7 in like 8 years.
Notable Wimby 10/11 USO 10/11.
Madrid 05. Paris 07. Rogers cup 08. OG 08.
However while fed didn't play all these finals to wait for nadull he was at the business end of most with nadull not showing.
Of the 16 slams in that Period nadull was at 4 without fed.
It's a few give and take get the picture.
Now compare that to the first 2 slams of the year fed only missed RG 10 n 12. U see the disparity.
So even when fed is not at 100% he competes the same cant be said about nadull. When not at 100% he withdraws or loses early.
Nadull still is in decline whatever u say with 2 years with no title off clay u can dodge facts all you want, it remains the same.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 07:30 PM   #1152
country flag Orka_n
Registered User
 
Orka_n's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 17,211
Orka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond reputeOrka_n has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Start da Greatness is doing what MIMIC used to do, arguing all he can that Federer has not actually declined, that he was just overtaken by better players - players that incidentally lose to mugs as often as olderer and MORE often than 04-07 Fed used to.

I don't even understand his argument to be honest. Nadal for example was very much active and winning slams even in Fed's prime but got taken out in countless non-clay events by the very players Greatness claims sucked. Baffling really.
__________________
I had strings
but now I'm free
there are
no strings
on me
Orka_n is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 07:38 PM   #1153
country flag luie
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2008
Age: 45
Posts: 3,516
luie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond reputeluie has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Orka_n View Post
Start da Greatness is doing what MIMIC used to do, arguing all he can that Federer has not actually declined, that he was just overtaken by better players - players that incidentally lose to mugs as often as olderer and MORE often than 04-07 Fed used to.

I don't even understand his argument to be honest. Nadal for example was very much active and winning slams even in Fed's prime but got taken out in countless non-clay events by the very players Greatness claims sucked. Baffling really.
Everyone sees right though Greatness motive. " to make Novak look good"
All this era talk is just a smoke screen. Feds Prime ran currently to 04-07.
However she pushed it further back to 03-06 why . He pushed it back because fed beat Novak in USO. He was " young" but a few months later he won AO. He suddenly got good.
I am surprise he/she didn't state 1999/ 2003.
__________________
The law of nature,only the strong survive.




THE GREAT TACTICAL RIVALRY OF THE OPEN ERA
FEDERER 10 VS TONI NADAL 20
ADVANTAGE TONI NADAL
RAPHEAL NADULL,A PRETTY FACE & MUSCLE
NOTHING MORE

Fed 2 nadull 13 fed is nadull CLAY TURKEY. THE REAL ERA 2003-2010.
luie is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 07:45 PM   #1154
country flag Greatness
Registered User
 
Greatness's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 460
Greatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond reputeGreatness has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
I am just stating facts . Nadull predominantly wins when conditions favor him . Clay and slow bouncing HC. Is that to say . He can't beat fed on a favorable surface NO of course not. He could beat fed anywhere any time but generally does it on conditions that aid his retrieving and top spin .
Yes fed has won 4 AO . But they changed the surface from rebound ace before 2009. When fed had won 3/4 at the AO. The current surface is slower and higher bouncing favoring nadull and grinders. There is a reason grinders do good at the AO as well it HOT. So something skill takes a back seat to raw physicality.
So teenage nadull beat Prime fed so what? Old fed beat Prime nadull at IW on Nadulls best HC masters. Fed also beat nadull on clay in BO3. Fed also had match points against nadull at Rome in a best of 5 on clay before he choked the match away.
All time greats can compete against the best and win and vice versa. Fed is still 2-1 against nadull on Grass.
My point still stand nadull is a No-show on Feds "tour" conditions favor him.
From 2005- till present post RG they is like 6/7 compulsory tourneys.
Nadull was a GS champion in 2005 there have been like 50 + tournies played from 2005-2012.
Of that nadull has made a finals appearance and waited on fed who didn't show like 6/7 in like 8 years.
Notable Wimby 10/11 USO 10/11.
Madrid 05. Paris 07. Rogers cup 08. OG 08.
However while fed didn't play all these finals to wait for nadull he was at the business end of most with nadull not showing.
Of the 16 slams in that Period nadull was at 4 without fed.
It's a few give and take get the picture.
Now compare that to the first 2 slams of the year fed only missed RG 10 n 12. U see the disparity.
So even when fed is not at 100% he competes the same cant be said about nadull. When not at 100% he withdraws or loses early.
Nadull still is in decline whatever u say with 2 years with no title off clay u can dodge facts all you want, it remains the same.
There is nothing factual about making excuses for every instance of Federer losing to opponents who have outplayed him several times even when they were young.
And now you're saying Fed competes the same way even when he's not 100%, which is a convenient way of saying he's so much better than everyone else he barely has to try.
You can say Nadal is in decline, but I don't see how that's relevant if he can still beat Federer in slams and win Roland Garros, both of which he did this year.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Singularity View Post
You're missing the point. Lets agree with you that they were mugs. What does that prove about Federer's level? Nothing.

To repeat again:

If no one could challenge Federer, then we can't determine what his limits actually were.
To repeat again, he was getting owned by a teenage clay courter on hardcourts. What does that say about all the hardcourt players of the time? Mugs. His limits were being unable to solve the challenges in playing Nadal even when he was at his best. Safin showed a level of play that was just as good as Federer back then but didn't seem to care much about tennis.

Weak,weak,weak field of one slam wonders, 35 year old Agassi, mugs showing up in slam finals to be destroyed, teenage Rafa still learning the game etc...

It's easier to look good against a weaker opponent yet prime Federer still got owned in the 2nd round at the 2004 Olympics by teenage Berdych. Olderer still chasing that elusive singles gold medal. lol

Get over yourselves, greatness is not just number of slams, it's how you won & against who. The merit of success isn't equal for everyone especially those dominating mugs during their best years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by luie View Post
Everyone sees right though Greatness motive. " to make Novak look good"
All this era talk is just a smoke screen. Feds Prime ran currently to 04-07.
However she pushed it further back to 03-06 why . He pushed it back because fed beat Novak in USO. He was " young" but a few months later he won AO. He suddenly got good.
I am surprise he/she didn't state 1999/ 2003.
Yes, Novak was young, and the fact that he could beat Federer at the AO 2008 in straights is an indication of his strong desire to succeed leading to improvement. There is nothing shameful about making a slam final at the USO and giving a good match to in form Federer.

Novak doesn't need me to look good, he's doing great fine winning 5 slams and 12 masters.
Greatness is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 08-17-2012, 08:06 PM   #1155
country flag fed4ever
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 28
fed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond reputefed4ever has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer Decline Thread (Federer will drop to number 4 next year)

From the Connors era on (i.e. ignoring Laver, Rosewall and the greats who came before them when eras were so different making things difficult to compare) the most amount of slams that anyone won between the age of 0-25 is 11 (Federer tied with Borg), the most amount of Slams that anyone won between the age of 26-30 is 6 (Federer tied with Lendl) and the most amount of Slams won from age 31 onwards is 2 (Connors). The arc of tennis careers do not all peak at the same time but I think from 0-25 most tennis players are at their physical peak, from 26-30 is the post-peak period, while anything from 31 on is considered a bonus since many tennis players have already retired by that age or are lucky to win slams at that age. It's specious to criticize Federer for not winning as much from 2008 on as proof that he was "overrated" and benefited from weak competition, when Federer not only is tied with Borg for most dominant peak but also tied with Lendl for most dominant post-peak of any tennis player. The simple fact is that tennis players do not win as often as they get older. It is unreasonable to say that because Federer did not win as often from 2008 on that should be regarded as proof that he wasn't really that good from 2003-2007. On the contrary, the fact that Federer has won 6 Slams during his post-peak (and is ranked #1 at 31 years of age) in what many consider one of the toughest eras ever should be considered as supporting evidence of how good he was during his peak. If Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are so great, why has the old man won the most slams between age 26-30 (tied with Lendl) than anyone else from the Connors era onwards? If Federer really was not that good why has he won so much at such an advanced age while clearly playing inferior to his level between 2003-2007? It is interesting to note that since Nadal won his first Slam in 2005 at Roland Garros, Federer has won 13 Slams while Nadal has won only 11. Since Aussie 2008, Nole has won 5 Slams while Federer has won 5. Even as he ages, Federer has been able to keep up with the young guys in their prime.

People like to belittle Federer's competition but it is interesting that past his prime Roddick has been able to beat Djokovic and Murray at Grand Slams during this "glory era" between 2008-2012; past his prime Safin beat Nole at Wimbledon during this era; Gonzalez beat Murray at the French; Tommy Haas beat Djokovic at Wimbledon. Guys who were years removed from their best tennis were still good enough to beat this era's greats while Djokovic and Murray were in their prime. Let us remember that it was 29 year old Federer that beat supreme Djokovic at Roland Garros ending his 43 match winning streak after Djokovic had been thrashing Nadal during the clay season. Furthermore, Federer at 30 years of age just beat #1 seed Djokovic and #4 seed Murray at Wimbledon. Let us also keep in mind that conditions (court surfaces, tennis balls) have slowed the game considerably and that post-peak Federer has been able to have this remarkable success in conditions that favour defensive-minded players more than at any time in tennis history. If anything, Federer's accomplishments from 2008 on are evidence of his greatness not the opposite.

Last edited by fed4ever : 08-17-2012 at 08:12 PM.
fed4ever is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools

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

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2015, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios