Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rkai01)
    I hope it does.
    Because if fed manages to clean them up everyone will shut up about him bein a weak era gs winner.
    I don't agree with this era talk, let's face it federer now being almost 34 is number 2 in the world...that argument is illogical.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMadClown)
    I don't agree with this era talk, let's face it federer now being almost 34 is number 2 in the world...that argument is illogical.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When people talk about the weak era, they're referring more in terms of grand slams won, not ranking.

    Once 2008 came and Nadal had reached an age where he could compete on all surfaces, Federer won far fewer grand slams. Many believe he would have never won US Open 2008, French Open 2009, Wimbledon 2009 and Australian Open 2010 if he had to face Nadal. There is a strong argument that Federer would never have won close to 17 grand slams had Nadal and Djokovic been born a few years earlier.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    When people talk about the weak era, they're referring more in terms of grand slams won, not ranking.

    Once 2008 came and Nadal had reached an age where he could compete on all surfaces, Federer won far fewer grand slams. Many believe he would have never won US Open 2008, French Open 2009, Wimbledon 2009 and Australian Open 2010 if he had to face Nadal. There is a strong argument that Federer would never have won close to 17 grand slams had Nadal and Djokovic been born a few years earlier.
    Pretty crap argument. There would be a strong argument that Sampras would never have won 14 slams, had Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Laver, Borg, and McEnroe all competed in the same era as him.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    When people talk about the weak era, they're referring more in terms of grand slams won, not ranking.

    Once 2008 came and Nadal had reached an age where he could compete on all surfaces, Federer won far fewer grand slams. Many believe he would have never won US Open 2008, French Open 2009, Wimbledon 2009 and Australian Open 2010 if he had to face Nadal. There is a strong argument that Federer would never have won close to 17 grand slams had Nadal and Djokovic been born a few years earlier.
    Are you sure that isn't just to do with matchups? Federer has always had problems with nadal.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chief Wiggum)
    Pretty crap argument. There would be a strong argument that Sampras would never have won 14 slams, had Djokovic, Nadal, Federer, Laver, Borg, and McEnroe all competed in the same era as him.
    Yepp...you can't blame a player for being in a certain era they played in, the way it stands is that Federer is still competing with a more competitive era now. The US open should be good.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMadClown)
    Yepp...you can't blame a player for being in a certain era they played in, the way it stands is that Federer is still competing with a more competitive era now. The US open should be good.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    If Federer didn't exist, Roddick would be a multi-slam champion, for example. Criticising Federer for a "weak era" just seems to be penalising him for being too dominant, which is madness.

    Nadal would always cause Fed problems due to his playing style, but I'm pretty sure peak Fed would be perfectly capable of handling peak Djokovic.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time, federer simply did not have the heart or stamina to keep up with nadal, especially the former. nadal has time and again done things on court that make you think wtf is this guy, clearly not human. novak will become the second of all time once his career is over.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welcometoib)
    Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time, federer simply did not have the heart or stamina to keep up with nadal, especially the former. nadal has time and again done things on court that make you think wtf is this guy, clearly not human. novak will become the second of all time once his career is over.
    Lol what?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welcometoib)
    Nadal is the greatest tennis player of all time, federer simply did not have the heart or stamina to keep up with nadal, especially the former. nadal has time and again done things on court that make you think wtf is this guy, clearly not human. novak will become the second of all time once his career is over.
    As I've explained above, it's to do with matchups everyone has their own kryptonite and it just so happened that nadal was federers, nadal is a great player but placing him above federer as the greatest is just silly.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    It's difficult to even begin to label someone as the greatest of all time, because tennis has evolved so dramatically over the years, and there's no way of telling how well people would have competed in different eras. I think guys like Rod Laver were amazing, and he managed to win the Calendar Year Grand Slam (twice) - something which no man has done since. Steffi Graff was the last woman to do so in 1988 (and Serena at last has a chance to join that elite list). Back in the '60s, pros weren't allowed to compete in Amateur Slams, so for all we know Laver could have knocked up another 9 or 10 Slams and have the all-time record. Federer, Nadal and now Djokovic are all on the list of All-Time Greats (and I would definitely place them in that order given their accomplishments, consistency/longevity, etc.)
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by snowman77)
    When people talk about the weak era, they're referring more in terms of grand slams won, not ranking.

    Once 2008 came and Nadal had reached an age where he could compete on all surfaces, Federer won far fewer grand slams. Many believe he would have never won US Open 2008, French Open 2009, Wimbledon 2009 and Australian Open 2010 if he had to face Nadal. There is a strong argument that Federer would never have won close to 17 grand slams had Nadal and Djokovic been born a few years earlier.
    I consider this view to be nonsense.

    When you consider that Federer from 2010-2014 has still won 2 slams and reached 2 finals - i.e reached the final on 25% of occasions despite being 5 years older than his rivals i find it far more likely that if they were all the same age then Nadal and Djokovic's smaller physical advantage would have led to Federer winning even more.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I consider this view to be nonsense.

    When you consider that Federer from 2010-2014 has still won 2 slams and reached 2 finals - i.e reached the final on 25% of occasions despite being 5 years older than his rivals i find it far more likely that if they were all the same age then Nadal and Djokovic's smaller physical advantage would have led to Federer winning even more.
    Everyone knows that Murray would've won 0 slams had he faced rog or raf in his victories.
    The match ups are weird, why are nolè vs Murray tight but fed destroys Murray but then Rafa beats fed and then fed vs nole are tight?

    Then you get Stan who destroys them all but then loses to some random guy ranked 300?!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rkai01)
    Everyone knows that Murray would've won 0 slams had he faced rog or raf in his victories.
    The match ups are weird, why are nolè vs Murray tight but fed destroys Murray but then Rafa beats fed and then fed vs nole are tight?

    Then you get Stan who destroys them all but then loses to some random guy ranked 300?!
    Murray and Djokovic are very similar in play style, so its more whose up for it on the day and its usually Djoko also Murray has a self destruct button.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ibrahimbasar)
    Murray and Djokovic are very similar in play style, so its more whose up for it on the day and its usually Djoko also Murray has a self destruct button.
    Haha yeah lol. Do you remember the famous feather from 13 aussie final. The brits used that as the excuse.
    And do you remember this years Aussie final when nole was acting ill and the Brits used noles acting skills as the excuse of murrays loss.
    And even the wimby 12 final after the roof closed everyone blamed that even though it is the exact same for both and actually it benefited Murray as roger is a better player with no roof.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rkai01)
    Haha yeah lol. Do you remember the famous feather from 13 aussie final. The brits used that as the excuse.
    And do you remember this years Aussie final when nole was acting ill and the Brits used noles acting skills as the excuse of murrays loss.
    And even the wimby 12 final after the roof closed everyone blamed that even though it is the exact same for both and actually it benefited Murray as roger is a better player with no roof.
    Not that I disagree with your point but Fed is actually better with the roof. He has a stupid indoor record.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Not that I disagree with your point but Fed is actually better with the roof. He has a stupid indoor record.
    Yes he does. But when the roof closed at Wimbledon the ball travels slower due to the humidity in the centre court stadium. Federer is at his most lethal on a faster surface and so hence the roof open means a faster surface so he is more tricky to handle.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMadClown)
    As I've explained above, it's to do with matchups everyone has their own kryptonite and it just so happened that nadal was federers, nadal is a great player but placing him above federer as the greatest is just silly.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    using "kryptonite" ad an excuse for federer being destroyed by rafa time, and time, and time agai, even on grass once nadal understood how it works on that court, is one of the worst ive ever heard. if fed was crap against a random player, fair enough, it doesnt affect his stature. when he has been clear second best, to his biggest rival ever, and the, at worst, second best player of all time, that's not krypton lol, whatever that means, it means quality of player.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    on a side point, watched some of the atp 500 today, its so hard to watch rafa like this. mentally shot, i dont think he has the confidence anymore to do those corner perfect forehands, missed nearly every one he attempted today, and i think, he is in trouble, just generally he doesnt really look like he gives a **** anymore. really sad how quickly this has happened, the old rafa is gone.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by welcometoib)
    using "kryptonite" ad an excuse for federer being destroyed by rafa time, and time, and time agai, even on grass once nadal understood how it works on that court, is one of the worst ive ever heard. if fed was crap against a random player, fair enough, it doesnt affect his stature. when he has been clear second best, to his biggest rival ever, and the, at worst, second best player of all time, that's not krypton lol, whatever that means, it means quality of player.
    How what works on grass? Head to heads mean nothing, its the records that stand and I was explaining it from a match up point of view, I for one am glad that we have the federer-nadal rivalry as it made things interesting over the years, I never said that nadal wasn't a quality player, anyone with his ambition and spirit deserves to be amongst one of the best, but why is that nadal has a winning head to head against federer, but a losing one against oh I don't know maybe davydenko?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ThatMadClown)
    How what works on grass? Head to heads mean nothing, its the records that stand and I was explaining it from a match up point of view, I for one am glad that we have the federer-nadal rivalry as it made things interesting over the years, I never said that nadal wasn't a quality player, anyone with his ambition and spirit deserves to be amongst one of the best, but why is that nadal has a winning head to head against federer, but a losing one against oh I don't know maybe davydenko?


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    head to head over a samploe size of 35 matches means nothing?
    where does davydenko rank amongst the best of all time? and since when does 6-5 mean anything lol? youre stating that number one and two of all time, who played in the exact same era, and one has a record of 23-10, lol, and that means nothing. ok then. before you tell me that andy roddick would destroy nadal, relax.

    23-10 v the second best of all time, is not "nothing", its everything, its how people rate those from the same era, obviously.


    just looked up the grand slam h2h. 9 freaking-2. of which only 5 are on clay, so 4-2 still to nadal lol! federer had some **** opposition before the other big 3 came on, he really did.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

4,841

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

Quick link:

Unanswered sport threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.