Tennis 2018

[Raoul]

Those are not hypotheticals. Elo ratings can prove that and Elo ratings are significant in an individual sport. As a Federer fan you just want to avoid that point but given amount of tennis you follow, you can't possibly think that the field from 2004-2007 and what was there in last decade is same.
Also yes, I consider Borg very highly in GOAT debate, 3rd or 4th all time to me.

Yes other tournaments will be considered but with less weight that slams obviously. There isn't much between them on hard courts. In 3 grass court meetings, Nadal got progressively better and the less said about overall Clay, the better.

Its just not something casual fans take into consideration in lieu of actual accomplishments. Players don't get to choose when they become very good and start winning slams, they just do it as a natural part of their development.

 

[The Man Himself]

Its just not something casual fans take into consideration in lieu of actual accomplishments. Players don't get to choose when they become very good and start winning slams, they just do it as a natural part of their development.

But why are we discussing 'casual fans'? Do they decide who is best? I mean the number of casual fans who turn up during world cup and pass judgement on best football players or teams (something we experience a lot in India), are not those who decide it. I have heard and read comments from such casual football fans saying "Why Schweinsteiger is not playing this world cup, had he played Germany would have won group stage easily!"

It is not Federer's fault that field was easier in 2004-2007 than it was for Novak and Nadal when they started. He could only beat what was in front of him. These two though had to face and overcome the guy who was already anointed the GOAT and who was in his prime, apart from overcoming each other and then there were guys like Murray and Stan who both have managed 3 slams in such tough era. Nadal and Djokovic consistently performed and proved that they are at least as good as Federer, even though with less natural talent. That can't be simply discarded by saying the toughest Men's era of last decade is merely a hypothetical compared to years before.

 

[Skills]

Head to heads will matter but they won't be the only thing in additional to slams. There are many other tournaments beyond the big four that will also be considered, and ultimately Federer and Nadal's tournaments won record will also come into play. What will certainly not matter are hypotheticals such as Federer not having the same amount of competition early on and that sort of thing. After all, if thought experiments mattered then Borg, who retired at 26 and didn't play in the Aussie - but still got 11 slams, would probably be considered the goat.

If you genuinely can't appreciate how special the big 4 era was in Tennis, I do pity you a little especially if you managed to watch it all.

It's like not being able to tell the difference between big mac meal deal, and dining at a Michelin starred restaurant. But I guess whatever works everyone.

 

[saivet]

For Nadal to claim the GOAT status, he will have to not only catch Federer, but pass him since Fed has won significantly more tournaments over his career.

That significant gaps is from 250 titles and personally when reviewing their careers these are irrelevant.

Federer has won 6 more world tour finals, Nadal has 5 more masters 1000 titles, they have the same number of 500s, Nadal has won a singles Olympic gold and then Federer has 16 more 250s.

Time will tell once they both retire, but I don't see the gaps as being insurmountable. I also don't think Nadal will surpass him in slams but predictions on future performance doesn't mean much anyway.

 

[Skills]

Anyone planning to go to the Tour finals this year? I'm hoping to watch the big 3, but I'm worried they're going to be broken by the end of the year again

 

[saivet]

Anyone planning to go to the Tour finals this year? I'm hoping to watch the big 3, but I'm worried they're going to be broken by the end of the year again

I plan to this year. Hopefully I can see Federer as I've been lucky enough to see Nadal and Djokovic live and number of times (Murray too) but never with Federer.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

It is not Federer's fault that field was easier in 2004-2007 than it was for Novak and Nadal when they started. He could only beat what was in front of him. These two though had to face and overcome the guy who was already anointed the GOAT and who was in his prime, apart from overcoming each other and then there were guys like Murray and Stan who both have managed 3 slams in such tough era. Nadal and Djokovic consistently performed and proved that they are at least as good as Federer, even though with less natural talent. That can't be simply discarded by saying the toughest Men's era of last decade is merely a hypothetical compared to years before.

That argument only apply to Novak, not Nadal.

Nadal started winning Slams from 2005 onwards, so he’s essentially had the same type as field throughout his career as Federer. By the beginning of 2005 Federer was on 3 Slams. If Nadal wasn’t good enough to win any other Slam apart from RG from 05-07, it doesn’t cheapen Federer’s achievement. People seem to forget that Federer started winning Slams at a much later age than Nadal, so when talking about the ‘weak field’ they pretend as if he only enjoyed it alone. Players have different peaks. You can’t say ‘well Nadal was younger then so those years shouldn’t count’ because then what does that make of Federer still competing/winning Slams age 36/37?

The grand total of Slams Fed won when Nadal wasn’t on the scene is 3 (even then in 2004 Nadal has already beaten him at Miami, so there goes 2 if you count it). Having 2005 as a starting point for when the competition started is about fair and they are currently tied 17-17. Whoever you rate as GOAT is down to preference. The H2H has also been done to death. 15-23 with 15 of those matches played on Clay, Nadal leads 13-2. Take those out and take grass out for Federer and it’s 11-9. It’s not representative of their superiority over one another or lack thereof when 40% of the matches were played on one player’s favourite surface.

I have no problem if someone rated Nadal as the GOAT, but the ‘05-07 doesn’t count because Federer only best shit players’ and the ‘H2H’ are two of the most flimsy/disingenuous argument to support that position.

 

[MJJ]

That argument only apply to Novak, not Nadal.

Nadal started winning Slams from 2005 onwards, so he’s essentially had the same type as field throughout his career as Federer. By the beginning of 2005 Federer was on 3 Slams. If Nadal wasn’t good enough to win any other Slam apart from RG from 05-07, it doesn’t cheapen Federer’s achievement. People seem to forget that Federer started winning Slams at a much later age than Nadal, so when talking about the ‘weak field’ they pretend as if he only enjoyed it alone. Players have different peaks. You can’t say ‘well Nadal was younger then so those years shouldn’t count’ because then what does that make of Federer still competing/winning Slams age 36/37?

The grand total of Slams Fed won when Nadal wasn’t on the scene is 3 (even then in 2004 Nadal has already beaten him at Miami, so there goes 2 if you count it). Having 2005 as a starting point for when the competition started is about fair and they are currently tied 17-17. Whoever you rate as GOAT is down to preference. The H2H has also been done to death. 15-23 with 15 of those matches played on Clay, Nadal leads 13-2. Take those out and take grass out for Federer and it’s 11-9. It’s not representative of their superiority over one another or lack thereof when 40% of the matches were played on one player’s favourite surface.

I have no problem if someone rated Nadal as the GOAT, but the ‘05-07 doesn’t count because Federer only best shit players’ and the ‘H2H’ are two of the most flimsy/disingenuous argument to support that position.

Huh? Nadal was what 16/17 back then? Nobody starts counting federer's field from when he was 17 cos tennis players arent expected to win at that age.

And even then Nadal had federer to compete with, whereas who was federer's best challenger.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Huh? Nadal was what 16/17 back then? Nobody starts counting federer's field from when he was 17 cos tennis players arent expected to win at that age.

Brazilian Ronaldo was the BPITW by 19 years of age. So he shouldn’t have been because he was only 19?

If you are good enough you are old enough and all that. Also, Nadal won RG when he was 19, Sampras won his first Slam (USO) at the same age.

 

[MJJ]

Brazilian Ronaldo was the BPITW by 19 years of age. So he shouldn’t have been because he was only 19?

If you are good enough you are old enough and all that. Also, Nadal won RG when he was 19, Sampras won his first Slam (USO) at the same age.

Ah okay so we should expect all players to compete since they were teenagers?

In that case, federer clearly failed since it took him until his early 20s to even win an open. So guess he wasnt good enough in that case and cant be the GOAT right?

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

And even then Nadal had federer to compete with, whereas who was federer's best challenger.

Did you read the post? I’ve already said you can count out the years when Nadal hasn’t started winning Slams for comparison. So, who was Federer’s best challenger in 05-07? Nadal, but he left the job to the likes of Roddick and Baghdatis to get on Hard.

 

[The Man Himself]

That argument only apply to Novak, not Nadal.

Nadal started winning Slams from 2005 onwards, so he’s essentially had the same type as field throughout his career as Federer. By the beginning of 2005 Federer was on 3 Slams. If Nadal wasn’t good enough to win any other Slam apart from RG from 05-07, it doesn’t cheapen Federer’s achievement. People seem to forget that Federer started winning Slams at a much later age than Nadal, so when talking about the ‘weak field’ they pretend as if he only enjoyed it alone. Players have different peaks. You can’t say ‘well Nadal was younger then so those years shouldn’t count’ because then what does that make of Federer still competing/winning Slams age 36/37?

The grand total of Slams Fed won when Nadal wasn’t on the scene is 3 (even then in 2004 Nadal has already beaten him at Miami, so there goes 2 if you count it). Having 2005 as a starting point for when the competition started is about fair and they are currently tied 17-17. Whoever you rate as GOAT is down to preference. The H2H has also been done to death. 15-23 with 15 of those matches played on Clay, Nadal leads 13-2. Take those out and take grass out for Federer and it’s 11-9. It’s not representative of their superiority over one another or lack thereof when 40% of the matches were played on one player’s favourite surface.

I have no problem if someone rated Nadal as the GOAT, but the ‘05-07 doesn’t count because Federer only best shit players’ and the ‘H2H’ are two of the most flimsy/disingenuous argument to support that position.

Nadal was 18-20 during 2005-07. That of course wasn't his peak. Starting point of 2005 when Nadal was 18. Why? Because Federer couldn't even then beat 18 year old Rafa on clay? Rafa was still finding his peak and still had lot to improve on other surfaces. As Nadal got more experienced, he got better on all surfaces and started beating Federer on hard as well and beat him on biggest stage of Grass court. 2008 onwards matters because quality of overall field changed from there, not from 2005. Rafa along with Novak displayed the best tennis in toughest era and won most.

Why take clay and grass out in h2h? You can't be GOAT if you are that lopsided vs biggest rival on one surface. If Federer had such dominance over Nadal on Grass then it would have cancelled out. Even with smaller sample size, that's not the case. Nadal improved his performance over the 3 matches and eventually won.

There is nothing flimsy about h2h, anybody who understands anything about individual sport will get that. Same goes for the comparison of field around. The slams and titles stacked up during 2004-07 will not rate as highly as during last decade, whoever the player.

 

[MJJ]

Did you read the post? I’ve already said you can count out the years when Nadal hasn’t started winning Slams for comparison. So, who was Federer’s best challenger in 05-07? Nadal, but he left the job to the likes of Roddick and Baghdatis to get on Hard.

Because he was a teen?

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Ah okay so we should expect all players to compete since they were teenagers?

In that case, federer clearly failed since it took him until his early 20s to even win an open. So guess he wasnt good enough in that case and cant be the GOAT right?

What are you even talking about?

Players have different peak/longevity in all sports. Wayne Rooney destroyed players years his senior when he was 17/18/19, is he the GOAT?

That’s why the cut off point should be when they start to compete at the highest level/winning. Some will start young and burn away quicker, some will go the distance even though they start later.

 

[saivet]

The earliest point I think you could say Novak and Rafa were really becoming competitive at slam level across the board is 2007 and then Murray 2008.

 

[MJJ]

What are you even talking about?

Players have different peak/longevity in all sports. Wayne Rooney destroyed players years his senior when he was 17/18/19, is he the GOAT?

That’s why the cut off point should be when they start to compete at the highest level/winning. Some will start young and burn away quicker, some will go the distance even though they start later.

What did rooney win at that age? He had talent but he needed to iron out his game. Its the same with Nadal who was just a clay court specialist and it took him a few years to iron out his game and win on all surfaces. From which point he dominated against a peak federer and later djokovic.

This just sounds like another attempt by federer fans to big up his easy wins near the start of the year.

Nadal like Federer had weaknesses to his game in his teen years, unlike federer, he was more advanced on one surface in his game to still keep winning.

 

[The Man Himself]

What are you even talking about?

Players have different peak/longevity in all sports. Wayne Rooney destroyed players years his senior when he was 17/18/19, is he the GOAT?

That’s why the cut off point should be when they start to compete at the highest level/winning. Some will start young and burn away quicker, some will go the distance even though they start later.

As good as Rooney was when he was 18, who calls that peak Rooney? Peak Rooney was much later. Rafa was amazing on clay probably as soon as he held racket. That doesn't make it his 'peak.'

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Nadal was 18-20 during 2005-07. That of course wasn't his peak. Starting point of 2005 when Nadal was 18. Why? Because Federer couldn't even then beat 18 year old Rafa on clay? Rafa was still finding his peak and still had lot to improve on other surfaces. As Nadal got more experienced, he got better on all surfaces and started beating Federer on hard as well and beat him on biggest stage of Grass court. 2008 onwards matters because quality of overall field changed from there, not from 2005. Rafa along with Novak displayed the best tennis in toughest era and won most.

Why take clay and grass out in h2h? You can't be GOAT if you are that lopsided vs biggest rival on one surface. If Federer had such dominance over Nadal on Grass then it would have cancelled out. Even with smaller sample size, that's not the case. Nadal improved his performance over the 3 matches and eventually won.

There is nothing flimsy about h2h, anybody who understands anything about individual sport will get that. Same goes for the comparison of field around. The slams and titles stacked up during 2004-07 will not rate as highly as during last decade, whoever the player.

So 31 year old Nadal couldn’t beat 36 year old Federer? Why?

The smaller sample is also nonsense. Anyone who has studied a bit of statistics knows that. You can’t draw any conclusion from 3 (!) matches.

 

[MJJ]

So 31 year old Nadal couldn’t beat 36 year old Federer? Why?

The smaller sample is also nonsense. Anyone who has studied a bit of statistics knows that. You can’t draw any conclusion from 3 (!) matches.

Talks about small sample size, argues against nadal based on one match.

 

[The Man Himself]

So 31 year old Nadal couldn’t beat 36 year old Federer? Why?

The smaller sample is also nonsense. Anyone who has studied a bit of statistics knows that. You can’t draw any conclusion from 3 (!) matches.

Because Federer is one of the best? Or are you saying last 2 years Federer is a peak Federer? So I guess Federer hit peak during 2004-07 then suddenly hit rock bottom (so amazing he still won few slams still!) and suddenly hit peak again in 2017-18 which coincidentally occurred when Novak-Murray and Stan were struggling with injuries. Any time when all players were in good physical conditions and matured as players should be ignored as Federer was distinct 3rd best in it, right?

Anybody who has watched tennis also understands difference between Federer-Nadal h2h on grass and clay. Only one player of those across those 2 surfaces looked hopeless against his opposition. 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in final ffs! That was worst loss in slam final in 2 decades or so back then and had happened to already anointed GOAT.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

What did rooney win at that age? He had talent but he needed to iron out his game. Its the same with Nadal who was just a clay court specialist and it took him a few years to iron out his game and win on all surfaces. From which point he dominated against a peak federer and later djokovic.

This just sounds like another attempt by federer fans to big up his easy wins near the start of the year.

Nadal like Federer had weaknesses to his game in his teen years, unlike federer, he was more advanced on one surface in his game to still keep winning.

He had his best NT performance aged 19. Also playing alongside Djemba-Djemba and Silvestre probably didn’t help with winning trophies.

There’s no bigging up here. I’m making the obvious point that despite the age difference, their Slam winning years have coincided. So you can’t count out 2005-2007 as ‘weak field’ when discussing them. For Novak, I’d accept the point, and if he somehow recovers and end up with similar number of Slams to Nadal/Federer, that would make him the GOAT.

 

[MJJ]

He had his best NT performance aged 19. Also playing alongside Djemba-Djemba and Silvestre probably didn’t help with winning trophies.

There’s no bigging up here. I’m making the obvious point that despite the age difference, their Slam winning years have coincided. So you can’t count out 2005-2007 as ‘weak field’ when discussing them. For Novak, I’d accept the point, and if he somehow recovers and end up with similar number of Slams to Nadal/Federer, that would make him the GOAT.

Nadal

2005- Lost in the fourth round to Hewitt(AO), Lost in the second round to Muller(Wimbledon), Lost in the third round to Blake(UO)
2006-Missed AO,Lost to Federer in the final(Wimbledon),Lost in the third round to Youzhney(UO)
2007-Lost in the QF to Gonzalez(AO),Loss in the final to Federer(Wimbledon), Lost in the fourth round to Ferrer(AO)

If you think that was Nadal's peak, you really should quit watching tennis. Even then if he was up against anyone else on grass in 06/07, he probably would have won atleast one of those matches.

And what slam winning years? Nadal was only a clay court specialist when he was young, during that period all he won was 3 FOs.

 

[The Man Himself]

What did rooney win at that age? He had talent but he needed to iron out his game. Its the same with Nadal who was just a clay court specialist and it took him a few years to iron out his game and win on all surfaces. From which point he dominated against a peak federer and later djokovic.

This just sounds like another attempt by federer fans to big up his easy wins near the start of the year.

Nadal like Federer had weaknesses to his game in his teen years, unlike federer, he was more advanced on one surface in his game to still keep winning.

I have seen quite a few Federer fans shift his peak years conveniently because the moment competition became toughest, he was 3rd best. The GOAT of grass has losing record vs Djokovic as well at Wimbledon. He for sure is best grass player but even there, his dominance is not like Nadal's on clay.

I don't have any problem in people saying Federer overall edges it a bit right now as GOAT but at least they have to acknowledge that he had it easier than other 2 in stacking slams. Slams h2h and overall h2h will always be biggest factors though of course not the only factors. Federer failed to answer Nadal and Djokovic playing style for long time and ended up losing more often than winning. If he can still win and play so good at 36-37 is proof that he wasn't past his peak when he wasn't winning as much in last decade. It was because other two were playing better.

 

[MJJ]

I have seen quite a few Federer fans shift his peak years conveniently because the moment competition became toughest, he was 3rd best. The GOAT of grass has losing record vs Djokovic as well at Wimbledon. He for sure is best grass player but even there, his dominance is not like Nadal's on clay.

I don't have any problem in people saying Federer overall edges it a bit right now as GOAT but at least they have to acknowledge that he had it easier than other 2 in stacking slams. Slams h2h and overall h2h will always be biggest factors though of course not the only factors. Federer failed to answer Nadal and Djokovic playing style for long time and ended up losing more often than winning. If he can still win and play so good at 36-37 is proof that he wasn't past his peak when he wasn't winning as much in last decade. It was because other two were playing better.

Yup, his recent resurgence coinciding with Nadal and Djokovic slowing down does kind of prove that. All three are phenomenal players but for me federer cant be the goat since he was upstaged at his peak by two other players.

The rest just sound like english fans arguing why their group wasnt weak.

 

[InfiniteBoredom]

Talks about small sample size, argues against nadal based on one match.

You are obviously looking for a reaction rather than discussing in good faith, look at the bold that prompted the answer ffs.

Because Federer is one of the best? Or are you saying last 2 years Federer is a peak Federer? So I guess Federer hit peak during 2004-07 then suddenly hit rock bottom (so amazing he still won few slams still!) and suddenly hit peak again in 2017-18 which coincidentally occurred when Novak-Murray and Stan were struggling with injuries. Any time when all players were in good physical conditions and matured as players should be ignored as Federer was distinct 3rd best in it, right?

Rock bottom is pretty strange way of describing it, the majority of tennis players though do win the bulk of their Slams in quick succession. I don’t think anyone who watch Federer post 2009 think he was anywhere near as physically good and clutch on the big point as he was before. This is when the bottle job against Djokovic at USO happened in 2010, losing to Tsonga in Wimby quarter and a slew of others like Berdych, Monfils, philonopoulos (or whoever his name is in Wimby 2013 first round) and so on. This is why downplaying one player at this or that point is pointless. Federer’s graceful style makes people think he’s timeless but he’s still human and there has been decline in multiple aspect of his game, mostly physical, ever since he hits 29/30 or so (most notably the speed and accuracy of his forehand), even if he gains on some other like the drop shot. Watch his hitting against Agassi in the USO final in 2005 and compare it with any other high profile match post 2009/10, it’s clear as day, and that decline works against him against the two best returner/baseliner of all time, even though he was still good enough to beat 95% of the field.



Anybody who has watched tennis also understands difference between Federer-Nadal h2h on grass and clay. Only one player of those across those 2 surfaces looked hopeless against his opposition. 6-1, 6-3, 6-0 in final ffs! That was worst loss in slam final in 2 decades or so back then and had happened to already anointed GOAT.

Well he lost to Luis Horna in the 1st round in 2003 and Kuerten in 3rd round in 2004 before going out to Nadal in 05. I’d never make the point that he’s anywhere near as good on Clay, and there’s only one way that can end with the Clay GOAT.

The H2H is useless because as already said, Clay is over-represented in the number, but that’s not the only reason. Even if they have played another 10 matches on grass with Federer winning the bulk of them, it’d still not matter, because it’s not reflective of their overall ability/achievement. Davydenko won a straight four matches against Nadal between 09-11 for example and lead the overall H2H, what do you make of that? Stylistic counter matters a lot and Federer couldn’t deal with Nadal’s top spin lefty forehand into his backhand for the majority of his career, until the change in racket in 2014. Is that a blemish against him? I guess you can say so, but teams/players having their boogeyman is nothing new.

Anyway that’s my opinion on the matter, I’ve had enough of these discussions on multiple platforms and find it to be even more tedious than the Ronaldo-Messi nonsense.

 

[André Dominguez]

Good God: this is like Ronaldo-Messi threads.

H2H is not a good measure: Nadal peaked when Federer was going into in his 30's, which created a big gap in H2H results. Now that Nadal is over 30, the gap is smaller.
In individual sports, age is even a bigger factor. The physics of an ageing human body is something no one can avoid, even if you pratice sports professionally.

Even though I prefer Federer tennis style, I'll admit that Nadal is a much more fierce opponent and if he wins at Wimbledon it's quite clear he will surpass Fedex . Just check what other tennis top players say: Best player on the circuit: Federer because technically he's a joy to watch. Worst opponent on the circuit: Nadal because his response technique is almost flawless, even if you make a strong serve.

 

[The Man Himself]

You are obviously looking for a reaction rather than discussing in good faith, look at the bold that prompted the answer ffs.


Anyway that’s my opinion on the matter, I’ve had enough of these discussions on multiple platforms and find it to be even more tedious than the Ronaldo-Messi nonsense.

I am not calling his performances after 2008 as 'rock bottom' that's how Federer fans kind of imply when they say Federer was past his peak after 2008-09. You mention age and all and then mentioned 2005 Agassi and returns against him. Also I don't believe a 29-30 year old Federer is past his peak and weak physically if he can still win a 5 setter vs Nadal at 36. Federer didn't find good enough answers to tackle Nadal and Djokovic and hence those were more successful against him, simple.
I don't know why you mention Davydenko h2h. Has Davydenko won so many slams? Is he is GOAT debate? We are clearly comparing h2h of the best players against each other. If Federer would have won more titles than Rafa and Novak from 2008 onwards, even if not winning as much as in 2004-07, he would have been clear GOAT candidate even if h2h was losing one. That didn't happen though. He routinely lost to these two in slams and hence that h2h matters because when they weren't there, he was winning 3 slams a year.

 

[Raoul]

If you genuinely can't appreciate how special the big 4 era was in Tennis, I do pity you a little especially if you managed to watch it all.

It's like not being able to tell the difference between big mac meal deal, and dining at a Michelin starred restaurant. But I guess whatever works everyone.

Who is the fourth in the "big four" ? All I see is overlapping periods where three very good all time great calibre players played the game.

 

[saivet]

Who is the fourth in the "big four" ? All I see is overlapping periods where three very good all time great calibre players played the game.

Murray.

I do think it's a valid point though that 2003 - 2006/7, Nadal (aside from clay), Djokovic and Murray were not serious competitors.

 

[saivet]

Anderson taken the first set vs Isner, in a tie break of course.

 

[Raoul]

But why are we discussing 'casual fans'? Do they decide who is best? I mean the number of casual fans who turn up during world cup and pass judgement on best football players or teams (something we experience a lot in India), are not those who decide it. I have heard and read comments from such casual football fans saying "Why Schweinsteiger is not playing this world cup, had he played Germany would have won group stage easily!"

Casual fans would be those of us posting in this thread who watch Tennis and don't require obscure mathematical formulas to adjudicate the obvious.

It is not Federer's fault that field was easier in 2004-2007 than it was for Novak and Nadal when they started. He could only beat what was in front of him. These two though had to face and overcome the guy who was already anointed the GOAT and who was in his prime, apart from overcoming each other and then there were guys like Murray and Stan who both have managed 3 slams in such tough era. Nadal and Djokovic consistently performed and proved that they are at least as good as Federer, even though with less natural talent. That can't be simply discarded by saying the toughest Men's era of last decade is merely a hypothetical compared to years before.

Federer began his career having to deal with Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick and quickly found himself dealing with Nadal, who won his first slam in 2005 and won two more in consecutive years thereafter. He also made two Wimbledon finals during that period. So all things said, its hard to make the case that Federer had it easy early on given the aforementioned names he had to deal with in overlapping periods. He began his head to head series with Rafa in 2004.

 

[KirkDuyt]

These big server matches are so boring. All power to them for being over 40 ft tall and serving at mach 3, but I prefer to watch a few rallies.

 

[saivet]

Federer began his career having to deal with Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick and quickly found himself dealing with Nadal, who won his first slam in 2005 and won two more in consecutive years thereafter. He also made two Wimbledon finals during that period. So all things said, its hard to make the case that Federer had it easy early on given the aforementioned names he had to deal with in overlapping periods. He began his head to head series with Rafa in 2004.

Sampras was retired before he first won a slam and Agassi was finishing up his career when Federer starting winning slams.

Looking at the stats, I'd argue Murray is better than Hewitt or Roddick too.

 

[elmo]

People are neglecting the fact that Nadal and Djokovic’s head to head against Federer are stacked against Federer because they can’t Get far enough to play against Federer when they’re not in top form whereas Federer pretty much gets to the semi or finals even when he was past his peak.

 

[Raoul]

Sampras was retired before he first won a slam and Agassi was finishing up his career when Federer starting winning slams.

Looking at the stats, I'd argue Murray is better than Hewitt or Roddick too.

Fed turned pro all the way back in 98 where the likes of Sampras and Agassi were still running the show.

Murray, for me is far more in the Hewitt category (multiple slam winner and world number one) than in the dominant category of Federer, Nadal, and Djokovic (won a dozen or more slams and was number at least 100 weeks).

 

[syrian_scholes]

The quality of this game is terrible, no wonder Nadal and Federer are still running the show with these players as competitors.

 

[The Man Himself]

Casual fans would be those of us posting in this thread who watch Tennis and don't require obscure mathematical formulas to adjudicate the obvious.



Federer began his career having to deal with Sampras, Agassi, Hewitt, and Roddick and quickly found himself dealing with Nadal, who won his first slam in 2005 and won two more in consecutive years thereafter. He also made two Wimbledon finals during that period. So all things said, its hard to make the case that Federer had it easy early on given the aforementioned names he had to deal with in overlapping periods. He began his head to head series with Rafa in 2004.

You don't need to work out formulae yourself. It is the objective behind Elo and how it works at high level and how it helps in differentiating achievements based on who they beat.

Sampras, Agassi? You really are clutching at straws here. Federer-Sampras played grand total of 1 time before Sampras retired. Federer won that match. Agassi too was well past his peak in 2000s but inconsistent field had him reaching odd finals and he also won 1. Hewitt and Roddick are nowhere near the levels of Stan and Del Potro, forget about the consistency and level of Nadal-Djokovic and Murray. They hardly make a case for tough field given difference in quality of theirs vs Federer. That is not a case since 2007-08, when faced with players of same calibre, Federer was no longer winning the most.

 

[Mrs Smoker]

The Big Two.....still no breaks.

 

[The Man Himself]

Sampras was retired before he first won a slam and Agassi was finishing up his career when Federer starting winning slams.

Looking at the stats, I'd argue Murray is better than Hewitt or Roddick too.

Of course, Murray is way better. Same goes with Stan.

 

[Raoul]

You don't need to work out formulae yourself. It is the objective behind Elo and how it works at high level and how it helps in differentiating achievements based on who they beat.

Sampras, Agassi? You really are clutching at straws here. Federer-Sampras played grand total of 1 time before Sampras retired. Federer won that match. Agassi too was well past his peak in 2000s but inconsistent field had him reaching odd finals and he also won 1. Hewitt and Roddick are nowhere near the levels of Stan and Del Potro, forget about the consistency and level of Nadal-Djokovic and Murray. They hardly make a case for tough field given difference in quality of theirs vs Federer. Not a case since 2007-08, when faced with players of same calibre, Federer was no longer winning the most.

Sampras and Agassi were still intermittently dominant players when Federer turned pro in 98 - correct ?

Hewitt and Roddick are former number one players of the time. Roddick would've certainly won two Wimbledons had he not run into a brick called peak Federer at the time.