Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 60 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,580 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Federer came up when serve-and-volley was still a big thing, hence all of his major development from juniors to turning professional was with a completely different mentality.

Djokovic and Nadal, on the other hand, were, from the very beginning, practicing the baseline tennis that has become the only tennis there is.

Federer had to show versatility and adapt, and they never did.

Imagine if Djokovic/Nadal came up in current conditions, only to have to adapt to the courts and strings changing to favor serve-and-volley for half the season? They'd be screwed.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,046 Posts
You think? Been saying that for years now. Age, the moment he turned pro, former champions he had to face. Different eras. The fact he's still playing at his age doesn't change all of this.

Although modern tennis is more physical than ever, I do believe all players have to adapt to a certain extent, because there will always be guys who can't rely on turning every match into a physical battle.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,169 Posts
Federer was really unlucky to be caught between eras, and worse than that, end up in one where (slow) conditions are harmful to his brand of tennis, while great for their main rivals.
I don't get tired of saying this, it's no coincidence that 3 of the big4 members are pushers. Only a player of unprecedent talent as Federer could still adapt to all those changes and pull out 20 slams in such adversity.
Imagine Pushak being suddenly thrown on a S&V era. Only Lobray would survive with his GOAT lobs.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,324 Posts
Lol, talk about false narrative. Sampras just started recording his first few weeks at #1 when Novak got his first tennis lessons. So for the next 10 years before turning pro S&V was still very much alive and well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,944 Posts
Federer has won his first slam (and has entered his first slam semi and final) less than two years before Nadal (RG'05).

Federer has won four slams before Nadal's RG'05, and he has won 16 slams thereafter.

Federer has reached 4 GS finals before RG'05, and he has reached 27 GS finals after RG'05.

So, although four years and ten months older than Nadal, he was part of Nadal's era and consequently of Djokovic era who is eleven month younger than Nadal.

Young Djokovic was Federer's arch HC rival, young Nadal arch CC/Grass rival.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,194 Posts
the slam winning years overlap a lot though. Obviously he’s older and all credit to him for his longevity. One could and probably will make the same case for any upcoming greats if Nadal and Djokovic hang around enough too...but what’s the conclusion? Opponents are opponents, if they meet deep in slams obviously they’re still good enough to get there
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,956 Posts
He got to vulture 2003-2007 Who was his main rival? 30 some year old Agassi from Pete's era with a bad back? . Thats lucky enough. Nadal didn't hit his real prime until 2008. Fed was already on 12-13 slams something like that by the time Nole hit his first. Hes lucky he didnt come 4-5 years after. There would be no vulturing of slams like he did in the 2003-2007 timeframe. Not with prime/Peak Nadal and Nole around.

His resume is overinflated because of that timeframe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,944 Posts
the slam winning years overlap a lot though. Obviously he’s older and all credit to him for his longevity. One could and probably will make the same case for any upcoming greats if Nadal and Djokovic hang around enough too...but what’s the conclusion? Opponents are opponents, if they meet deep in slams obviously they’re still good enough to get there
Masters too, 1 masters title in 2002, 3 masters in 2004 and then they both won 4 masters in 2005.

Nadal was an extra early bloomer, Djokovic was an early bloomer, Federer was kind of an average age bloomer.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
56 Posts
Federer was really unlucky to be caught between eras, and worse than that, end up in one where (slow) conditions are harmful to his brand of tennis, while great for their main rivals.
I don't get tired of saying this, it's no coincidence that 3 of the big4 members are pushers. Only a player of unprecedent talent as Federer could still adapt to all those changes and pull out 20 slams in such adversity.
Imagine Pushak being suddenly thrown on a S&V era. Only Lobray would survive with his GOAT lobs.
Federer already had twelve GS titles when Novak won his first. It is Novak 16 vs Federer 8 after that. And three of those eight Federer won when Novak was injured. So, no, there is no "unprecedent talent". Collecting GS titles against Filipousis and Baghdatis is not "unprecedent talent".

And, please, stop it once and for all, promoting Federer as some unlucky guy who got caught up between eras. No, he is not. If he showed up together with Novak and Rafa, he would not win ten GS.

Novak, true tennis genius and best tennis player ever. He has three, four more years to collect enough GS titles to prove it and make Fed bots shut up forever.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
549 Posts
Fed had trouble on the baseline and was hardly amazing when loopy balls came at him. He was flat footed at the net sometimes. He hates having to drop shot or work without dipping the ball low/bashing the ball.
He’s not the ballerina like the media and maniacs claim.
Djoker‘s still improving. He hits winners from anywhere, including drop shots. That’s not pushing only.
A great player hits hard, slices, drop shots & pushes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,989 Posts
Federer already had twelve GS titles when Novak won his first. It is Novak 16 vs Federer 8 after that. And three of those eight Federer won when Novak was injured. So, no, there is no "unprecedent talent". Collecting GS titles against Filipousis and Baghdatis is not "unprecedent talent".

And, please, stop it once and for all, promoting Federer as some unlucky guy who got caught up between eras. No, he is not. If he showed up together with Novak and Rafa, he would not win ten GS.

Novak, true tennis genius and best tennis player ever. He has three, four more years to collect enough GS titles to prove it and make Fed bots shut up forever.
pretty much this, fraud wouldn't have reached double digits slams and the GOAT discussion would only feature 2 players with fraud being a mere footnote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,281 Posts
pretty much this, fraud wouldn't have reached double digits slams and the GOAT discussion would only feature 2 players with fraud being a mere footnote.
Lol, if Federer and Djokovic were the same age, Djokovic would have only about 7-8 slams.

Djokovic has racked up so many slams in this weak era since 2013, where his main rival off clay has been a declining Federer.

And even then, Djokovic managed to win only 3 US Opens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,948 Posts
He's somewhat contemporary to Nadal given Nadal was an early boomer and Federer a bit lateish. But yeah, Federer and Djokovic are certainly different generations. Federer's first multi slam year and when he reached #1 was 2004 and Djokovic's was 2011. 7 years in tennis is an eternity.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,768 Posts
OP is right, Fed played Nadal/Novak only a handful of times - different era for sure
 
1 - 20 of 60 Posts
Top