Was Federer lucky to have won 16 Grand slam ?

[Sooda]

Federer was a great player, but his lack of success over recent years against quality opponents is evidence enough that he was winning Grand Slams in a easy era. Tell me, is it easier to win Grand Slams, when Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandian are playing, or when Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, DelPo etc are playing? Fed is the greatest of all time but he was helped by the fact his rivals when he was young, were total and utter shyte. Nadal's and Djokovic's accomplishments for me may well be less numerically, but their paths to glory have been far more difficult. Why Indians constantly bring Sachin into every discussion, I don't know. Keep Sachin out of this, he plays cricket, a ridiculously easy sport in comparison.

Of course they were not as good as Nadal, Novak and Murray, and Fed at his peak was playing against lesser opponents than are around today but whatever their limitations Hewitt, Roddick and Safin have 5 or 6 slams between them and Nalbandian is a hugely talented player probably the best ever to have not won a slam. Huge disservice to dismiss them as 'utter shyte'. I would even suggest that Safin and Nalbandian- on their day- could beat Murray, Rafa, and Novak if they were operating at their best, or at least push them pretty far. We know when Nalby was in the zone he was pretty awesome and has beaten both Rafa and Federer. Their problems were temperamental more than anything and to an extent injuries. with Hewitt and A Rod it was the opposite, never gave less that 100% and real pros, but not as gifted as they would have liked to be. Also the points adi and tics make are very valid. And even at 30+ Fed is around winning last years Wimbledon title and hanging around in QFs and SFs of slams at least

[Zelig]

Nalbandian has always done well against Rafa, mainly due to his extraordinary backhand. Just like Djoker :agree:

[bones]

Seems like all of you are blind to the blatent honest truth, which was Federer had a much easier time of it than the current elite players. It is wonderful that Federer is still up and playing well, but he can only play well one two surfaces, the really quick hard courts ie. Cincinnati or on Grass. Was Federer lucky to win 17 GS? No he wasn't, he was at the right time. You can only beat what is front of you. But what was in front of Federer was Roddick etc. If anyone thinks that Safin, Roddick etc are anywhere near the level of Nadal, Djokovic etc, they need to go and get their heads checked out. Federer has done an outstanding job staying at the top for such a long time, no disputing that, it's an incredible feat to be in the top 5 still at this age, but it's more through reaching SFs and QFs than actually winning tournaments, because Nadal and Djokovic are winning way more tournaments. Adi B, you just type utter trpe, no point is responding to you.

[Sooda]

^ Youre right but Federer is no way near as good as he was in 04 to 07. What if Federer been in his mid 20's now ... matches like the 2011 US Open semi vs Novak or even last years tour finals final may well have gone his way... as would possibly the Aus Open Semi vs Murray this year. So Murray and Novak would have enjoyed less success. Rafas edge over Fed would have remained but to a lesser degree

[adi B]

Seems like all of you are blind to the blatent honest truth, which was Federer had a much easier time of it than the current elite players. It is wonderful that Federer is still up and playing well, but he can only play well one two surfaces, the really quick hard courts ie. Cincinnati or on Grass. Was Federer lucky to win 17 GS? No he wasn't, he was at the right time. You can only beat what is front of you. But what was in front of Federer was Roddick etc. If anyone thinks that Safin, Roddick etc are anywhere near the level of Nadal, Djokovic etc, they need to go and get their heads checked out. Federer has done an outstanding job staying at the top for such a long time, no disputing that, it's an incredible feat to be in the top 5 still at this age, but it's more through reaching SFs and QFs than actually winning tournaments, because Nadal and Djokovic are winning way more tournaments. Adi B, you just type utter trpe, no point is responding to you.

guys like you have one agenda,cant change such mindset :facepalm:

[Yoda-esque]

guys like you have one agenda' date='cant change such mindset :facepalm:[/quote'] Clearly has not played Tennis :giggle:

[bones]

^ Youre right but Federer is no way near as good as he was in 04 to 07. What if Federer been in his mid 20's now ... matches like the 2011 US Open semi vs Novak or even last years tour finals final may well have gone his way... as would possibly the Aus Open Semi vs Murray this year. So Murray and Novak would have enjoyed less success. Rafas edge over Fed would have remained but to a lesser degree

Valid points, but the question then to ask is, as we've seen it recently from the top players, if Fed was 25 now, would that mean he would dominate in the same way, or would it elevate his rivals to an even higher level of play? If Fed was 25 now, he'd still win quite a lot of tournaments, the quick hard courts and Wimbledon for sure, possibly even some of the slower hard courts, but would he really stand a change vs Djokovic, let alone Nadal on clay? Would Roger Federer really have the ability to stay physically toe to toe with Novak in those long gruelling matches at the Australian Open? I'm neither a Fed fan or a Fed hater, but I stand by what I have said all along, Fed's rival when he was at his peak were average, which made his rise to the hall of fame much quicker than it would if he were born 5 years later. It is through his rivalry with Nadal and then later the epic Nadal and Djokovic matches that Tennis is so popular right now. I used to watch tennis a lot when Fed was at his peak, but I didn't enjoy the contests that much, yes his skill was the best and great to see, but as an actual contest they were non-existent.

[Raghav_12]

lack of success in recent years is bcoz his rivals are 25-26 years old at their primewhile fed is 30+' date='u expect a guy 30+to win the world and beat those players at their prime everytime? we`ll see how djokodal perform when they are 30+,i bet when they`ll fade guys like u will say oh they were lucky they played in an easy era,now they are exposed[/quote'] Age can be an excuse of Federer loosing to Murray and to Djoko to good extent. But you can't defend Federer's defeats to Nadal on grounds of age. Nadal has owned Federer almost completely since start of 2008 when Federer was 26 only, which is age of prime form for a tennis player, by your own logic. Nobody says that Federer hasn't been an all time great. But we have to agree with the fact that no 16 has something to do with the depleted field that Federer got at the beginning of his carrer but to his credit he made most of that.

[adi B]

Age can be an excuse of Federer loosing to Murray and to Djoko to good extent. But you can't defend Federer's defeats to Nadal on grounds of age. Nadal has owned Federer almost completely since start of 2008 when Federer was 26 only, which his age for prime form of a tennis player, by your own logic. Nobody says that Federer hasn't been an all time great. But we have to agree with the fact no 16 has something to do with the depleted field that Federer got at the beginning of his carrer but to his credit he made most of that.

yeah i do agree nadal,regardless age,prime etc etc has mostly got fed`s number..biggest nemesis of fed