The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now - Page 21 - 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!

Reply

Old 09-22-2013, 06:31 AM   #301
country flag tribalfusion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,450
tribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lenders View Post
I don't have any 'agenda' related to Federer or Nadal, just calling BS as I see it. Ferrero - and other unfairly derided New Balls players - was an excellent player at his peak. Not quite good enough to compete with Federer in his prime sure, which is why he/they get deried by the weak era brigade. The problem with this is that none of the currently active players - with the exception of Nadal of course - is good enough to compete with Federer in his prime; the only reason Ferrero and co. are targeted is because they happened to be Federer's contemporaries.
I don't think you have a Nadal/Federer agenda per se and I didn't have you in mind for that comment but rather some other posters whom we both know well. You're pretty fair on that score (while being very unfair to Ferrer however which is your biggest lacuna).

Ferrero was a very good player true, but so was/is Ferrer himself and they are not leagues apart by any stretch.

I assume when you say "none of the currently active players - with the exception of Nadal of course - is good enough to compete with Federer in his prime" that you mean of those who were active then otherwise the sentence makes no sense as Murray and Djokovic are certainly good enough to compete with prime Federer as well.

The only 2 guys with REAL top level game who could have challenged Federer early on didn't dedicate themselves to the game like our top 3-4 guys today and had some injury issues (but which also had to do with that lack of dedication).

I am of course speaking of Nalbandian and Safin who are, like all players of their type, hugely overrated here but they certainly had a lot of potential which they mostly didn't realize.

To compare them (with their on and off again approach) and their cohort (as they were) to the guys today is madness and I don't think any sane tennis analyst would do that.
tribalfusion is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 09-22-2013, 06:42 AM   #302
country flag shanks
Registered User
 
shanks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 494
shanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond reputeshanks has a reputation beyond repute
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
You sir have your head too far up your favorite's arse that you just can't think rationally. I answered your pisspoor question in five different ways. It is you who just keeps beating around the bush to no avail.

He lost his first two matches in 2008 to Djokovic and Murray. He lost in the semis for the first time in 2 years and that IN STRAIGHT SETS. Your chicken brain needs to get that tennis is a huge mental sport and players can go off the boil after a loss deep in a slam. It did not happen in 2005 because he had not yet created the "monster" back then and resumed play.

If his OVERALL level in 2005 was better, how did he end up with just 2 slams as compared to 3 each in 2004 and 2007 which you don't consider his topmost level?

You have no answer to that.

If he could be pushed by no slam clowns Davydenko, Haas, Nalbandian, Blake, Ljubicic and old Agassi to 5 sets in slams, how do you consider that level higher than his level in say Wimbledon 2008 where he did not drop his serve to the final or say his AO 2009 where he did not drop a set to the final. Both times losing to Nadal in final.

You have no answer to that either. Here you get back to saying that you were talking about his OVERALL play including mickey mouse tournaments. You think you are being clever with that but I am afraid to say that makes you dumb.
What does 2005 & 2007 level have to do with his 2008 performance? Its totally irrelevant. Because you have absolutely no rational answer to my question you are bringing a totally different topic. He won 3 slams in 2007 with winning percentage of 89% and 10 titles. It was a brilliant year. 2005 was also great as he lost just 4 matches in entire year winning 12 titles & 95% winning percentage. So what if he won 2 slams? It was still a great year. Why don't you get it through that thick head of yours that it is NOT all about slams when you measure a player's OVERALL performance. There are many things to consider which your pea sized brain cannot comprehend at all. The whole world knows that Fed had mono beginning of 2008 so your point is invalid and redundant. Guess you didn't get the memo. Even Novak fans know Fed was nowhere near his best in the whole tournament. It took until Mar- Apr for him to recover to full health. His training and practice routine and many things were disrupted . Guess when Nadal gets injured 1000 times its genuine and for other players same rule does not apply. What a hypocrite .

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
shanks is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 06:48 AM   #303
country flag MTwEeZi
Registered User
 
MTwEeZi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 3,090
MTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond reputeMTwEeZi has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Federer declined in 2007 but still had a peak year result-wise when Davydenko, Nadal, and Djokovic choked massively. Gonzalez also choked the AO 1st set but I will give you that one.
MTwEeZi is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 07:25 AM   #304
country flag Mark Lenders
Registered User
 
Mark Lenders's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Lisbon, Portugal
Posts: 13,643
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 past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalfusion View Post
I don't think you have a Nadal/Federer agenda per se and I didn't have you in mind for that comment but rather some other posters whom we both know well. You're pretty fair on that score (while being very unfair to Ferrer however which is your biggest lacuna).

Ferrero was a very good player true, but so was/is Ferrer himself and they are not leagues apart by any stretch.

I assume when you say "none of the currently active players - with the exception of Nadal of course - is good enough to compete with Federer in his prime" that you mean of those who were active then otherwise the sentence makes no sense as Murray and Djokovic are certainly good enough to compete with prime Federer as well.

The only 2 guys with REAL top level game who could have challenged Federer early on didn't dedicate themselves to the game like our top 3-4 guys today and had some injury issues (but which also had to do with that lack of dedication).

I am of course speaking of Nalbandian and Safin who are, like all players of their type, hugely overrated here but they certainly had a lot of potential which they mostly didn't realize.

To compare them (with their on and off again approach) and their cohort (as they were) to the guys today is madness and I don't think any sane tennis analyst would do that.
Nope, I really mean all active players, including Djokovic and Murray, especially the latter. What would Murray's odds of winning a Slam be in 2004-2009 when Federer controlled HC and grass and Nadal clay? About the same as Ferrero's imo. Djokovic couldn't even hold off Federer consistently at the Slams in his prime with Federer off his.

What is madness is to think Djokovic and/or Murray are even remotely in the same leagu as Federer in his prime. I rooted for Federer to lose almost every match he played during his prime, but it was largely very frustrating due to how incredibly good he was. Nadal was able to exploit the chinks in his armor, but no one else was. Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer... or Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Davydenko... - put them in Federer's prime and it makes little to no difference whatsoever, Federer is much better than all of them - the main difference would be that the current guys would be labelled as 'weak' instead.

One thing that's important to understand is that not only was prime Federer playing at an insanely high level, he was there all the time. Murray won 2 Slams without facing Nadal on the way (the super-great player of the generation after New Balls), in 2004-2009 it was impossible to win a Slsm without going through Federer, he was there all the time in every single Slam; players like Roddick, Hewitt and others could have certainly built a better resumé for themselves if Federer had missed one Slam and lost R1 in another during a year like Nadal did this year (or even worse last year).

This generation is very unfairly depicted by some; it's hard not to look weak when you need to go through peak Federer on HC/grass and Nadal on clay to win Slams at your peak - probably the two best players in the Open Era. Djokovic and Murray are certainly great players, but how strong would they look if that was the challenge they had to overcome to win each Slam? I suspect not that strong.
Mark Lenders is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 08:24 AM   #305
country flag tribalfusion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,450
tribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lenders View Post
Nope, I really mean all active players, including Djokovic and Murray, especially the latter. What would Murray's odds of winning a Slam be in 2004-2009 when Federer controlled HC and grass and Nadal clay? About the same as Ferrero's imo. Djokovic couldn't even hold off Federer consistently at the Slams in his prime with Federer off his.

What is madness is to think Djokovic and/or Murray are even remotely in the same leagu as Federer in his prime. I rooted for Federer to lose almost every match he played during his prime, but it was largely very frustrating due to how incredibly good he was. Nadal was able to exploit the chinks in his armor, but no one else was. Djokovic, Murray, del Potro, Berdych, Tsonga, Ferrer... or Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Ferrero, Davydenko... - put them in Federer's prime and it makes little to no difference whatsoever, Federer is much better than all of them - the main difference would be that the current guys would be labelled as 'weak' instead.

One thing that's important to understand is that not only was prime Federer playing at an insanely high level, he was there all the time. Murray won 2 Slams without facing Nadal on the way (the super-great player of the generation after New Balls), in 2004-2009 it was impossible to win a Slsm without going through Federer, he was there all the time in every single Slam; players like Roddick, Hewitt and others could have certainly built a better resumé for themselves if Federer had missed one Slam and lost R1 in another during a year like Nadal did this year (or even worse last year).

This generation is very unfairly depicted by some; it's hard not to look weak when you need to go through peak Federer on HC/grass and Nadal on clay to win Slams at your peak - probably the two best players in the Open Era. Djokovic and Murray are certainly great players, but how strong would they look if that was the challenge they had to overcome to win each Slam? I suspect not that strong.
Ok now we really disagree then. Baby Murray and Djokovic gave Federer tough matches early on and beat him even way more so than the new balls guys. Besides Safin and Nalbandian when they could be bothered, you had basically a few Ferrers, the guy you love to hate. Be consistent please.

We are really in the world of counterfactuals and I very rarely indulge in these but there is NO way the guys Federer destroyed were of the same quality as Murray and Novak at their best; they gave Federer tough matches and won before they were even 22.

And another thing you aren't considering is that you pick up a ton of important confidence and experience when you are already on top at 23-24 playing guys in their first slam finals etc. I wonder how that would have played out with the positions reversed; a little less confidence for Roger and a little more for Novak or Andy or even Rafa.

There's simply NO way Novak doesn't beat Roger in Australia at LEAST now and then if both are at their best and the same goes for Murray in many cases. Rafa did it anyway fairly often and would have done it more brutally and across the board more soundly if he had played Federer for the first time at say age 23.

There's simply no way to know how important any of this would have been but you must seriously reexamine your views if you actually believe it would make no difference to put guys up there at their best physically and crucially, before Federer became a steamroller of confidence and experience.

Big difference playing a guy who is already a legend and one who is your peer.

What madness is it? Gee, I don't know...maybe the fact that they actually DID beat Federer with some regularity before they were even nearly as consistent and mentally tough as they are now tells me that.

Last edited by tribalfusion : 09-22-2013 at 08:27 AM.
tribalfusion is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 01:49 PM   #306
country flag Burrow
Registered User
 
Burrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 18,256
Burrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond reputeBurrow has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahadabans View Post
And Roddick didn't take advantage in his lone slam win? Please. He played Juan Carlos Ferrero in the final for crying out loud. How did that guy (with two HC titles in his entire career) make the final of the USO? I'll tell you how, the tour was utter crap in 2003. Juan Carlos Ferrero is another guy that luck sacked a slam. He played Martin Verkerk in the final at RG in (you guessed it) 2003. Who the fuck is Martin Verkerk? Exactly.

Teleport Ferrer back to 2003 and he would have won RG (he's 3-1 against Ferrero on clay) and probably made the final of the USO in Ferrero's place, and he would have had a chance of beating Roddick too (he is 3-3 against him on HC's).

I don't know why everyone hates on Ferrer. It's completely unjustified. Fact is, Ferrer was unlucky to born into this era where he basically can't win anything because he's competing with three of the greatest players of all time. In any other era, he'd have at least one slam and more titles. He could have easily had a better career than Ferrero (his career is almost as good and he's basically been shutout of M1000 and slams due to some dudes named Nadal, Federer and Djokovic.


This is a general observation, but people are hating on the tier B ranked 5-10 crowd because they can't beat the top 4. Well, if you have to play against four of the best tennis players of all time, that's what would happen. It doesn't mean you're a vulture or a mug. These guys would have done much better in a weaker era.
Typical MTF post of a member looking at letters, numbers and such without analysing the play itself and the user to speak of most likely cannot remember a single thing about Juan Carlos Ferrero's 2003 US Open and Martin Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros.

The second paragraph is quite possibly one of the most uneducated and quite frankly unintelligent posts I've ever read, so I will address you this one time only.

As for Juan Carlos Ferrero, the latter stages of his US Open were extremely convincing. His US Open had changed after he scraped past Todd Martin, who was always a difficult task in New York. He was lucky to get past Martin and in my opinion gained a false sense of accomplishment. Ferrero was just plain brilliant against Hewitt. His serve and forehand were at their best and he looked like a better version of Hewitt out there. Still, I didn't expect him to better Agassi. Despite the match being a 4 setter, it was very close and there wasn't much between the two but Ferrero was reeling with confidence. People forget that Ferrero had a forehand that would mix with the best of them and was recognised by many as the best forehand on tour for a short while. How you could possibly compare Ferrer with the level of tennis played in these 2 matches is utterly beyond me and testament to the fact you are too lazy to bother performing actual analysis before commenting. I have both of these matches on DVD and are extremely refreshing. They're refreshing because they have a great mix of attacking baseline tennis coupled with athleticism. The important thing to notice is that athleticism is secondary to attacking tennis and not vice versa.

I haven't seen the 2003 US Open final in some time but it was a pretty one sided match with Roddick serving well and timing well off the forehand. Roddick was performing dominantly on serve and Ferrero couldn't break through and didn't have many chances to. Roddick didn't either but he took his chances. Despite this, Ferrero was a well worthy finalist and looked like he could've shocked the tennis world.

Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros run is one of the most impressive and enjoyable fortnight's a tennis fan could ever hope for. We've got this guy who's seen as a playboy (as he said himself, he could have chosen to become a 'playboy' or a tennis player) coming out of nowhere to deliver stunning all-court tennis. At 6'5'', Verkerk wasn't expected to glide around the court like Guillermo Coria but he wasn't far off. The amazing thing is that almost all of his opponents were good players and he was heavy underdog in 4 of the matches he managed to win. For a relatively lowly ranked player with absolutely no experience winning matches at slam level, he not only delivered but he delivered consistently when it mattered, only to falter in the final.

It's funny that many on this forum regard Robin Soderling's two finalist spots as great achievements, particularly in 2009, so it makes me wonder why Martin Verkerk doesn't get the credit he deserves. Well, it's easy to answer. It's because he's a no-name to most on the forum, who didn't even watch him perform. He was like a better, more complete version of Soderling. He had a better return and was far superior at the net but still with the power. Carlos Moya was in good form and was looking confident but he was seen away in an absolute thriller on Lenglen. Ferrer could only dream of playing tennis to this level. He doesn't possess the power, touch and brilliance that Verkerk exhibited.

Take Ferrer back to 2003 and he would've been sent packing by Luis Horna, never mind even reaching the likes of Moya or Coria or Ferrero. You'd need to possess genuine greatness to come out on top of these 3 matches in succession. These are men who've won the biggest titles to be won on clay and recently had won Barcelona, Hamburg and Monte Carlo. We're not talking about a 31 year old Robredo who's just played 3 consecutive 5 set matches and Tsonga who's never won a clay court title in his career. Ferrer has struggled to post games on the board against Nadal never mind even challenge for a set, he can't even hold serve. He's been beaten by players who are hardly legends of the game in the form of Monfils, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Melzer, Benneteau, Verdasco and whoever else. You're taking the piss if you think Ferrer has one iota of a chance to win 2003 Roland Garros.

He has a winning record against Ferrero because Ferrero had a very short lived career at the top, of which we can attribute this to illness and injury. I was never a fan of Ferrero during that period but he was quite clearly a shadow of his former self post 2003. Users minds are warped by the fact that today we have older tennis players for many reasons. Ferrero was done and was never destined to win anything of prestige after 2004, if there was any doubt, it was clear after he was defeated quite handily by Marat Safin at 2005 Roland Garros when he was playing pretty poorly himself. It took much more than that to defeat a prime Ferrero (see his dismantling of Safin at 2002 Roland Garros).

As for Roddick, as I've said previously, Roddick was never the same after coaching from Goldfine during mid 2005. All of their matches are after this period. Even a well past it Roddick was pushing Ferrer in every match they played and defeated him at the 2011 US Open when Roddick was an absolute non-factor.

You say that Ferrer hasn't won MS and Slams due to Murray, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Great players can achieve greatness regardless of who they've had to play. Ferrer has BOTTLED it many times, in matches where he's had HUGE chances to win (see the Madrid Nadal match this year) and has lost to many other players outside of these guys.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by latso View Post
...was properly educated by my parents, so i think before i write something stupid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnotize View Post
I knew I was going to regret, reading inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burrow View Post
Weren't you just pestering another guy about his grammar, not so long ago?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hypnotize View Post
And your problem with my grammar is?
Burrow is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:02 PM   #307
country flag ahadabans
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 1,073
ahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Lenders View Post
What are you on about? Ferrero at his peak was a great player, fully deserving of his status as one of the #1s in ATP history. And not a hardcourt mug by any means, he was pretty good on all surfaces.

You have no arguments, randomly calling a former #1 a 'mug' just shows you're desperate to glorify the present; anyone who watched Ferrero play during his peak knows he was an excellent player, certainly much better than Ferrer.
Do you even look at tennis stats at all? You generally make good posts, but you are so completely off base on this Ferrero / Ferrer argument that I don't even know where to begin.

Ferrero took advantage of a weak time in tennis history. In particular, 2003 which was a complete joke. He has no titles on grass, and only two titles on HC (both pre-Federer era). He was #1 for 15 minutes during the weakest year in the last two decades of tennis. His lone RG title was won against a complete nobody. Outside RG, he made a single final at the USO (again, in 2003) and never made it past the 4R of the USO otherwise or Wimbledon or Australian (one SF excluded). He as 34 titles in his career.

Ferrer on the other hand has 39 titles, including 7 on HC and 1 on grass. He can actually play on all surfaces unlike Ferrero. He also has winning H2H records versus some good players on clay. Ferrer has made the SF in three out of four slams and the QF at Wimbledon. Ferrer is also one of the greatest returners the game has ever seen. Since 1991, he is ranked 4th in history. More shit you clearly didn't know about Ferrer.
http://www.atpworldtour.com/Matchfac...px?c=9&s=0&y=0

My original argument which you apparently didn't read was that Ferrer is a tier B guy and had he peaked during a transitional period, he would have won a slam. Because he is on the same level as guys like Ferrero and Roddick.
ahadabans is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:05 PM   #308
country flag ahadabans
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Age: 39
Posts: 1,073
ahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond reputeahadabans has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Burrow View Post
Typical MTF post of a member looking at letters, numbers and such without analysing the play itself and the user to speak of most likely cannot remember a single thing about Juan Carlos Ferrero's 2003 US Open and Martin Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros.

The second paragraph is quite possibly one of the most uneducated and quite frankly unintelligent posts I've ever read, so I will address you this one time only.

As for Juan Carlos Ferrero, the latter stages of his US Open were extremely convincing. His US Open had changed after he scraped past Todd Martin, who was always a difficult task in New York. He was lucky to get past Martin and in my opinion gained a false sense of accomplishment. Ferrero was just plain brilliant against Hewitt. His serve and forehand were at their best and he looked like a better version of Hewitt out there. Still, I didn't expect him to better Agassi. Despite the match being a 4 setter, it was very close and there wasn't much between the two but Ferrero was reeling with confidence. People forget that Ferrero had a forehand that would mix with the best of them and was recognised by many as the best forehand on tour for a short while. How you could possibly compare Ferrer with the level of tennis played in these 2 matches is utterly beyond me and testament to the fact you are too lazy to bother performing actual analysis before commenting. I have both of these matches on DVD and are extremely refreshing. They're refreshing because they have a great mix of attacking baseline tennis coupled with athleticism. The important thing to notice is that athleticism is secondary to attacking tennis and not vice versa.

I haven't seen the 2003 US Open final in some time but it was a pretty one sided match with Roddick serving well and timing well off the forehand. Roddick was performing dominantly on serve and Ferrero couldn't break through and didn't have many chances to. Roddick didn't either but he took his chances. Despite this, Ferrero was a well worthy finalist and looked like he could've shocked the tennis world.

Verkerk's 2003 Roland Garros run is one of the most impressive and enjoyable fortnight's a tennis fan could ever hope for. We've got this guy who's seen as a playboy (as he said himself, he could have chosen to become a 'playboy' or a tennis player) coming out of nowhere to deliver stunning all-court tennis. At 6'5'', Verkerk wasn't expected to glide around the court like Guillermo Coria but he wasn't far off. The amazing thing is that almost all of his opponents were good players and he was heavy underdog in 4 of the matches he managed to win. For a relatively lowly ranked player with absolutely no experience winning matches at slam level, he not only delivered but he delivered consistently when it mattered, only to falter in the final.

It's funny that many on this forum regard Robin Soderling's two finalist spots as great achievements, particularly in 2009, so it makes me wonder why Martin Verkerk doesn't get the credit he deserves. Well, it's easy to answer. It's because he's a no-name to most on the forum, who didn't even watch him perform. He was like a better, more complete version of Soderling. He had a better return and was far superior at the net but still with the power. Carlos Moya was in good form and was looking confident but he was seen away in an absolute thriller on Lenglen. Ferrer could only dream of playing tennis to this level. He doesn't possess the power, touch and brilliance that Verkerk exhibited.

Take Ferrer back to 2003 and he would've been sent packing by Luis Horna, never mind even reaching the likes of Moya or Coria or Ferrero. You'd need to possess genuine greatness to come out on top of these 3 matches in succession. These are men who've won the biggest titles to be won on clay and recently had won Barcelona, Hamburg and Monte Carlo. We're not talking about a 31 year old Robredo who's just played 3 consecutive 5 set matches and Tsonga who's never won a clay court title in his career. Ferrer has struggled to post games on the board against Nadal never mind even challenge for a set, he can't even hold serve. He's been beaten by players who are hardly legends of the game in the form of Monfils, Ramirez-Hidalgo, Melzer, Benneteau, Verdasco and whoever else. You're taking the piss if you think Ferrer has one iota of a chance to win 2003 Roland Garros.

He has a winning record against Ferrero because Ferrero had a very short lived career at the top, of which we can attribute this to illness and injury. I was never a fan of Ferrero during that period but he was quite clearly a shadow of his former self post 2003. Users minds are warped by the fact that today we have older tennis players for many reasons. Ferrero was done and was never destined to win anything of prestige after 2004, if there was any doubt, it was clear after he was defeated quite handily by Marat Safin at 2005 Roland Garros when he was playing pretty poorly himself. It took much more than that to defeat a prime Ferrero (see his dismantling of Safin at 2002 Roland Garros).

As for Roddick, as I've said previously, Roddick was never the same after coaching from Goldfine during mid 2005. All of their matches are after this period. Even a well past it Roddick was pushing Ferrer in every match they played and defeated him at the 2011 US Open when Roddick was an absolute non-factor.

You say that Ferrer hasn't won MS and Slams due to Murray, Djokovic, Federer and Nadal. Great players can achieve greatness regardless of who they've had to play. Ferrer has BOTTLED it many times, in matches where he's had HUGE chances to win (see the Madrid Nadal match this year) and has lost to many other players outside of these guys.
So basically numbers mean nothing and your opinion is superior to mine?

Cool. Welcome to my ignore list.
ahadabans is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:36 PM   #309
country flag BringBakTehGrass
Registered User
 
BringBakTehGrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,692
BringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by tribalfusion View Post
Ok now we really disagree then. Baby Murray and Djokovic gave Federer tough matches early on and beat him even way more so than the new balls guys. Besides Safin and Nalbandian when they could be bothered, you had basically a few Ferrers, the guy you love to hate. Be consistent please.
Murray didn't beat Federer in a Slam until 2013 (!) (arguably the only time he beat Federer in his prime was Cincinnati 2006; rather he notched up lots of wins against him in 2008 and early-2009 when Federer had declined quite considerably). Djokovic's first (and only?) win against prime Federer came in late 2007; before this he had been beaten quite comprehensibly by the Swiss four times in a row.

The only player (of the current Top 3) who could really stand up to Federer in his prime was Nadal. He showed what a challenge his game was to Federer in Miami '04 and '05, and reiterated this on the clay for the next three years (also on the grass in '07).

It is my opinion that a prime-Nadal versus prime-Federer match would be very competitive on any surface, with a slight edge to Federer on the grass (and probably indoors), and a bigger edge to Rafa on the clay. This is not the case with Djokovic and Murray. Federer of '04 to (early) '07 would be able to beat them just as he did his contemporary rivals, and just as (healthy and in-form) Rafa does today.
__________________
Grass court Slam leaders (Open Era): Federer (7), Sampras (7), Newcombe (7), Borg (5),
Laver (4), Edberg (4), Connors (4), Becker (3), McEnroe (3), Rosewall (3)
__________________________________________________ ____________

Last edited by BringBakTehGrass : 09-22-2013 at 05:39 PM.
BringBakTehGrass is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:37 PM   #310
country flag motorhead
Banned!
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 12,124
motorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond reputemotorhead has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by ahadabans View Post
So basically numbers mean nothing and your opinion is superior to mine?

Cool. Welcome to my ignore list.
motorhead is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:38 PM   #311
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by shanks View Post
What does 2005 & 2007 level have to do with his 2008 performance? Its totally irrelevant. Because you have absolutely no rational answer to my question you are bringing a totally different topic. He won 3 slams in 2007 with winning percentage of 89% and 10 titles. It was a brilliant year. 2005 was also great as he lost just 4 matches in entire year winning 12 titles & 95% winning percentage. So what if he won 2 slams? It was still a great year. Why don't you get it through that thick head of yours that it is NOT all about slams when you measure a player's OVERALL performance. There are many things to consider which your pea sized brain cannot comprehend at all. The whole world knows that Fed had mono beginning of 2008 so your point is invalid and redundant. Guess you didn't get the memo. Even Novak fans know Fed was nowhere near his best in the whole tournament. It took until Mar- Apr for him to recover to full health. His training and practice routine and many things were disrupted . Guess when Nadal gets injured 1000 times its genuine and for other players same rule does not apply. What a hypocrite .

Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App
How many grandslams did he miss due to "mono"? Anyway that's a side point.

The main point being you cannot have it both ways. That's what I have been opining from the very beginning. If you are asserting that his level in 2005 was greater than 2007 or 2004, then it means that his "best" level in 2005 was still not good enough to get 3 slams which he did in 2004 or 2007. I cannot fathom that idea.

When I questioned you the same, you and Burrow decided to bring Safin to defend your stance. But at the same time unwilling to credit players who are 10 times of what Safin ever was. That is the double standard I am talking about.
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:47 PM   #312
country flag tribalfusion
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 3,450
tribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond reputetribalfusion has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBakTehGrass View Post
Murray didn't beat Federer in a Slam until 2013 (!) (arguably the only time he beat Federer in his prime was Cincinnati 2006; rather he notched up lots of wins against him in 2008 and early-2009 when Federer had declined quite considerably). Djokovic's first (and only?) win against prime Federer came in late 2007; before this he had been beaten quite comprehensibly by the Swiss four times in a row.

The only player (of the current Top 3) who could really stand up to Federer in his prime was Nadal. He showed what a challenge his game was to Federer in Miami '04 and '05, and reiterated this on the clay for the next three years (also on the grass in '07).

It is my opinion that a prime-Nadal versus prime-Federer match would be very competitive on any surface, with a slight edge to Federer on the grass (and probably indoors), and a bigger edge to Rafa on the clay. This is not the case with Djokovic and Murray. Federer of '04 to (early) '07 would be able to beat them just as he did his contemporary rivals, and just as (healthy and in-form) Rafa does today.

This is ridiculous. Murray was a teenager when he beat Roger in 2006 and Djokovic did so as early as 2007. And as for "comprehensively" beating Novak as I recall it, Novak was a teenager when he first played Roger in Monte Carlo in 2006 and took it to 3 sets even then giving Roger a nice 6-2 set in the bargain. Pretty impressive stuff for a green teenager wouldn't you agree? Novak went on to beat him the very next year by the way at the ripe old age of 20.

Still, if you really don't see how much better both guys are in the past 3 years than they were at age 18-21 (an age when Federer for example was far from his own peak) then we are living in 2 different galaxies.

Of course Nadal beat Federer early on but even he would have been stronger from age 22 or 23 onward especially off clay than he was at 18 or 19.

Of course for Murray or anyone for that matter playing a slam against a guy who had many like Roger is different than coming up against the same player when you are BOTH at your peak and not a legend vs a green rookie. Confidence means a lot in tennis and that was a part of it, especially in slams.

The truth is Murray and Djokovic are a cut above any of the other competitors not named Nadal from the past decade or so and that's just so obvious from the results, even from when they were kids, as well as actually having watched the matches.

And the poster above who claimed that Verkerk was a much better Soderling...please, get some help.

Last edited by tribalfusion : 09-22-2013 at 05:51 PM.
tribalfusion is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:49 PM   #313
country flag BringBakTehGrass
Registered User
 
BringBakTehGrass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 3,692
BringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond reputeBringBakTehGrass has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
When I questioned you the same, you and Burrow decided to bring Safin to defend your stance. But at the same time unwilling to credit players who are 10 times of what Safin ever was. That is the double standard I am talking about.
Djokovic didn't even get a set off Safin in Wimbledon 2008. This was the same year that he had already won a Grand Slam (AO) and two Maters (IW and Rome), and reached the final of Queens (indeed he was very competitive versus Nadal there; moving well on the grass).

There is no doubt in my mind that prime Safin > prime Djokovic. The only problem is that Safin's work ethic was atrocious, and he had a prime Federer to contend with...
__________________
Grass court Slam leaders (Open Era): Federer (7), Sampras (7), Newcombe (7), Borg (5),
Laver (4), Edberg (4), Connors (4), Becker (3), McEnroe (3), Rosewall (3)
__________________________________________________ ____________
BringBakTehGrass is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:50 PM   #314
country flag Aristotle
Registered User
 
Aristotle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 282
Aristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond reputeAristotle has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Just so people know, not all posters with Nadal pic are his fans.
Aristotle is offline View My Blog!   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2013, 05:57 PM   #315
country flag BauerAlmeida
Registered User
 
BauerAlmeida's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Argentina
Age: 22
Posts: 4,126
BauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond reputeBauerAlmeida has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: The Federer past his prime at 26/27 excuse looks ridiculous now

Quote:
Originally Posted by BringBakTehGrass View Post
Djokovic didn't even get a set off Safin in Wimbledon 2008. This was the same year that he had already won a Grand Slam (AO) and two Maters (IW and Rome), and reached the final of Queens (indeed he was very competitive versus Nadal there; moving well on the grass).

There is no doubt in my mind that prime Safin > prime Djokovic. The only problem is that Safin's work ethic was atrocious, and he had a prime Federer to contend with...
Being contemporary to Prime Federer didn't really affect Safin that much. On the AO 2004 he was dead tired, would've lost that final to any other relatively strong rival probably, the other match they played on the final stages of a GS he won it (AO 2005). There's also that SF in Wimbledon 2008, but that wasn't prime Federer or Safin really.

His work ethic and injuries (specially the latter) were what stopped him most of the time.
BauerAlmeida 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 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios