[luie]

Originally Posted by Greatness

You can't fluke 3 slams and 5 masters beating the top 3 players consistently. Especially since Novak defended the Australian Open and 2 of his masters this year still beating the top players to do that.

A fluke is Rosol beating Nadal at Wimbledon and losing in the next round.


There is more than one way to play the game and it will keep changing with time. Winning from the baseline is harder and more taxing physically, but that's the way a lot of players are playing today. Against Nadal, serve and volley is suicide because of his passing shots. Also, players hit with more pace which makes it tough to redirect shots at the net.



What many variables? Far more skilled players of today would destroy the weaker field Federer faced. You don't need a million variables to realize that Bagdhatis/Roddick/Gonzalez/etc at their best are nowhere near as good as Novak/Rafa/Murray. There are three players competing for slams with a legitimate chance of winning multiple ones each year. Who apart from Federer was making slam semis/finals consistently from 2003-2006 and how good were they? The answer is clear, and your logic is stupid because you keep thinking an old player can't win against a younger player otherwise it proves that he younger player isn't good.

Rafter beat Federer on grass/clay/hardcourt. However, that was 29 year old Rafter vs 20 year old Federer, who was still a baby finding his game. The past greats beating the younger players isn't a shocker. Federer beating Novak/Rafa/Murray doesn't prove they wouldn't dominate he field he faced because even the current Federer is a lot better than most of the players from 2003-2006.
It's a simple concept that you have been dodging all along with nonsense about hypotheticals/variables. Some things are obvious, you can either choose to accept it or delude yourself into thinking prime Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt etc are better than prime Nadal/Novak/Murray.




Glutinous Novak still straight-setted Federer at AO 2008. Gluten free Novak is 6-2 against Federer starting from AO 2011.

As expected . U fail to see that nadull is part of Feds generation . And federer played him in 05/06. He won on all surface. Nadull entered his Prime in 2007.
So u cannot put nadull in a SEPERATE group because he is Feds main rival. U can't see that then what is the point discussing with u. AGAIN Nadull played in Feds era. Gosh. His simplistic game is more applicable when he is young.
Nadull is an early bloomer. Just like Borg won a slam 18 multiple champion n finalist by 21 . Do u hear anyone young Borg. Becker/ wilander/ Chang/ Hewitt all won slams some multiple before 21 years old they are not young.
That's the concept to cannot grasp. So he is Feds rival during his dominant period.
So if u split nadull in 2 . U are saying old / injury prone nadull greater than young nadull.
Bring up rafter. Is irrelevant as fed has a different game to nadull, rafter played fed in his first ever match. Should I bring up how nadull lost to Blake/ Roddick etc no its irrelevant.
So everyone knows nadull is greater than Gonzalez etc. so what he is Feds rival. Feds career encompassed his entire career most likely.
Murray u say is better that Roddick/ ferrero/ Agassi/Safin/ hewitt. All of them has slams Murray does not.
Is Murray greater than Gonzalez /baghdatis etc. in terms of results so what. Fed beat him and nadull won against Soderling/ Berdych. Similiar in career to Baghdatis and Gonzalez as I already pointed out. So he is better than Feds second tier competition.
Novak . Feds rivals Safin/ Hewitt/ 2003 Agassi than glutinous Novak.
Gluten free Novak has accomplished more. However old fed could still take him down.unsure if he would have discovered his *allergy* winke winke back in those days. Against a faster courts and servers and flat hitters.
That take time "away" to make his FH susceptible .
Roddick has a superior h2h in his old age. PRIME Roddick on faster court I would give the edge.

[Looner]

Originally Posted by Matt01

Federer and Nadal were winning their Wimbledon titles from the basline, too.

Except for 2009, Fed never won Wimbledon only from the baseline.

[yesyesok]

Lozlles. gonzalez makes one slam final and suddenly he defines an era. i think one fails to grasp the concept that there was a broader field in prime fed era. now we have four players who have a monopoly on most big titles, including past it fed at number one which completely defeats your argument alone. tennis has changed as a result of feeders dominance and all you can seethrough tinted glasses is super novak saving tennis. Besides, tennis was far better to watch before ball bouncing and grunting became normal regardless of what era is 'stronger'

[Fed=ATPTourkilla]

Of course, another very obvious point is that if the current era is so strong, why do we have the oldest Wimbledon champion since the 1970s and the second oldest world no 1 in the Open Era? Hardly a ringing endorsement for Djokovic, Murray, Nadal.

[Silvester]

Originally Posted by Fed=ATPTourkilla

Of course, another very obvious point is that if the current era is so strong, why do we have the oldest Wimbledon champion since the 1970s and the second oldest world no 1 in the Open Era? Hardly a ringing endorsement for Djokovic, Murray, Nadal.

Because the current #1 is the GOAT.

[Whiznot]

This thread is a year older than the Maestro's twin daughters. Perhaps when the girls enter their second or third school year the decline poll might be relevant. Tough luck for fans who can't stomach the natural superiority of a genius.

[Brick Top]

We need Everko in this thread!

[Greatness]

Originally Posted by luie

As expected . U fail to see that nadull is part of Feds generation . And federer played him in 05/06. He won on all surface. Nadull entered his Prime in 2007.
So u cannot put nadull in a SEPERATE group because he is Feds main rival. U can't see that then what is the point discussing with u. AGAIN Nadull played in Feds era. Gosh. His simplistic game is more applicable when he is young.
Nadull is an early bloomer. Just like Borg won a slam 18 multiple champion n finalist by 21 . Do u hear anyone young Borg. Becker/ wilander/ Chang/ Hewitt all won slams some multiple before 21 years old they are not young.
That's the concept to cannot grasp. So he is Feds rival during his dominant period.
So if u split nadull in 2 . U are saying old / injury prone nadull greater than young nadull.
Bring up rafter. Is irrelevant as fed has a different game to nadull, rafter played fed in his first ever match. Should I bring up how nadull lost to Blake/ Roddick etc no its irrelevant.
So everyone knows nadull is greater than Gonzalez etc. so what he is Feds rival. Feds career encompassed his entire career most likely.
Murray u say is better that Roddick/ ferrero/ Agassi/Safin/ hewitt. All of them has slams Murray does not.
Is Murray greater than Gonzalez /baghdatis etc. in terms of results so what. Fed beat him and nadull won against Soderling/ Berdych. Similiar in career to Baghdatis and Gonzalez as I already pointed out. So he is better than Feds second tier competition.
Novak . Feds rivals Safin/ Hewitt/ 2003 Agassi than glutinous Novak.
Gluten free Novak has accomplished more. However old fed could still take him down.unsure if he would have discovered his *allergy* winke winke back in those days. Against a faster courts and servers and flat hitters.
That take time "away" to make his FH susceptible .
Roddick has a superior h2h in his old age. PRIME Roddick on faster court I would give the edge.

I've already included Nadal as one of the few players actually having the level to challenge Federer and doing it early as a teenager.
The rest of the field was a joke apart from Safin.

Originally Posted by sco

The counter to your argument is that a 31 year old Federer is #1 in the prime years of Nadal, Novak and Murray. So whether it's Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt or Nadal/Novak/Murray, he's still #1. If you say it that way, gosh, at least Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt had the excuse that Federer was in his prime. What excuse do Nadal/Novak/Murray have to allow a 31 year old, past prime, married with 2 kids (because we all know from past history that marriage and kids are a death knoll to a tennis player) who should be lacking motivation and drive because he's won everything to be sitting at #1. Shame on them.

Shame on them indeed. They should learn from Federer and play the occasional mug tournament to earn cheap points.
Mahut + Walkover against Youzhny + Niemenen + Davydenko + Delpo = 500 hard earned points from Federer.

Where was number 1 Federer at the Olympics? Getting thrashed by Murray.

Originally Posted by Litotes

Don't be ridiculous. My memory is excellent, if you're trying to hit a nerve you're barking up the wrong tree. You were talking about beating top players in title defences, not on the way to losing finals, and you did not qualify your statement with "mostly". Also, Djokovic never faced either Federer nor Nadal in Miami. So saying he beat top players, in plural, means you are counting as a top player...Ferrer, perhaps?

It didn't matter how I qualified my statement because it was true either way that he beat top players this year regardless.
You were the one sinking to a new low by singling out Toronto while being fully aware that he had beaten the top 4 including Federer.

I'm counting all matches versus the top four. Whether or not he faced only 1 top player in Miami because Federer was too busy losing to Roddick isn't relevant to the point that to actually win the title, he had to beat a top player.

[luie]

Originally Posted by Greatness

I've already included Nadal as one of the few players actually having the level to challenge Federer and doing it early as a teenager.
The rest of the field was a joke apart from Safin.



Shame on them indeed. They should learn from Federer and play the occasional mug tournament to earn cheap points.
Mahut + Walkover against Youzhny + Niemenen + Davydenko + Delpo = 500 hard earned points from Federer.

Where was number 1 Federer at the Olympics? Getting thrashed by Murray.



It didn't matter how I qualified my statement because it was true either way that he beat top players this year regardless.
You were the one sinking to a new low by singling out Toronto while being fully aware that he had beaten the top 4 including Federer.

I'm counting all matches versus the top four. Whether or not he faced only 1 top player in Miami because Federer was too busy losing to Roddick isn't relevant to the point that to actually win the title, he had to beat a top player.

Ok now we getting some where.
Now I can also claim that Murray and del-po is a joke from the current generation.
Murray only won 1 set in GS. And del-po he is 13-2 against.
So I can also say this era is a joke apart from old nadull n gluten free Novak.
For federer that is.

[Greatness]

Originally Posted by Fed=ATPTourkilla

Of course, another very obvious point is that if the current era is so strong, why do we have the oldest Wimbledon champion since the 1970s and the second oldest world no 1 in the Open Era? Hardly a ringing endorsement for Djokovic, Murray, Nadal.

In the history of tennis' Open Era, only 6 players have achieved 3 slams with multiple masters in the same year.
Three of them are playing right now and are sharing slams. That is a testament of how special the current top players are.

At Federer's peak, all he faced as a threat was baby Nadal and a lot of mugs.

Originally Posted by luie

Ok now we getting some where.
Now I can also claim that Murray and del-po is a joke from the current generation.
Murray only won 1 set in GS. And del-po he is 13-2 against.
So I can also say this era is a joke apart from old nadull n gluten free Novak.
For federer that is.

The only joke is Federer losing to 34 year old Haas and washed up Roddick who can't even get a first serve in anymore.

[sera$un]

[Corey Feldman]

Originally Posted by Greatness

Where was number 1 Federer at the Olympics? Getting thrashed by Murray.

Least he made the final

Gold and Silver medals in the bank
back too back Olympics.

[luie]

Originally Posted by Greatness

In the history of tennis' Open Era, only 6 players have achieved 3 slams with multiple masters in the same year.
Three of them are playing right now and are sharing slams. That is a testament of how special the current top players are.

At Federer's peak, all he faced as a threat was baby Nadal and a lot of mugs.




The only joke is Federer losing to 34 year old Haas and washed up Roddick who can't even get a first serve in anymore.

On the big stage . I talk slams, that's why Presently don't rate Murray that high with his masters as compared to fed.
This era is a joke with only old injury prone no knees nadull and gluten free Novak.
Cut it any way u like. Nadull losing to the likes of 100 Rosol. Not winning a title of clay for what would be more that 2 years. He has reverted back to a core clay courter .
Gluten free Novak is ok , plus he had luck on his side at the USO. Hit n hope.
The rest of the tour is forgettable at best.

[Burrow]

People throwing names around, numbers, records etc etc.

Shows how members of this forum don't know a thing about tennis because they can't judge the greatness of an era by analysing the performances themselves.

[Singularity]

Claim #1 Federer's peaked in a weak era.

Claim #2 Federer was only dominant because he was playing in a weak era.

Proving claim one does not prove claim two.

That's the problem with all these 'weak era' debates. If Federer wasn't tested, because he faced weak opposition, then how are we supposed to know what he was capable of in the first place?