zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Clay court Nadal played those years when only two serve and volleyers of quality existed in men's tennis- Roddick and Federer. When Federer was 20, there was Sampras, Rafter, Ivanisevic, Henman, Krajicek. all of whom would've tooled Nadal on the faster wimbledon courts. If Agassi couldnt win a wimbledon against any of them with a better serve & much better return, Nadal wouldn't have either. Federer was lucky that he didn't play many serve and volleyers on grass. Stakhosky showed it last year. He is vulnerable to serve and volley on grass. Sampras would have pawned him in his prime. He was unlucky that Federer got him on his worst phase of the career on a slow grass surface, yet it was a tight 5 setter. Henman showed it the next round and then Ancic in 2002 in the first round. Again two can play this game. :--D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 If Nadal was in place of Federer from 2004-07 he would have won 3 calendar year grand slams in that weak era. Two can play this game. I highly doubt it. As i pointed out and you again kept quiet, the weak era argument is a fallacy. Federer made it look weak, if Nadal had been around there, he would've won just the French Open. He was around from 2005 and still only won the French Open in that period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer was a slow starter but peaked right away after winnig his first slam. Next year he won 2, the year after he won 3. Becker won 2 slams in his first two years but didn't really peak till 89-90 when he finally challenged Lendl for #1 ranking. I didn't say Federer was over the hill by 26, again don't misquote me just to try and win an argument. I said that tennis players in general peak by 26. Federer & Agassi are the exception to the case (but then again, Agassi had a year off to keep the mileage on his body lower) and it remains to be seen what Murray, Djokovic or Nadal do after 26/27. Federer did win wimbledon when Sampras was still active, albeit, in his last year. But it is to be expected, that is how tennis has always gone. Lendl, Wilander, Edberg,Becker didnt win much either before McEnroe,Borg and Connors peaked or retired.Sampras, Agassi didn't win much either before Edberg, Lendl, Becker peaked or retired. There are very few greats who overlap eras, they tend to work in bunches. Becker was the only one who sort of bridged the gap between Lendl/Wilander era and the Sampras/Agassi era and that too because he won very young. In any other era, Safin & Roddick would've won more, Safin's hardcourt game was easily as good as Djokovic's though not as consistent. FYI it was Federer who ended Hewitt's dominance, who for a period dominated the heck out of Sampras, Agassi. Its a fallacious argument to say that 'so-n-so won so many slams because others were not good enough to win'. Because it does not say anything about the quality of those players, by that argument, everytime somoene wins 2-3 slams a year, it must be because of a poor field, not because they did amazingly well those years. Federer was a little late to win his first slam but then again, he did not take tennis very seriously till his coach died. He himself said so. The same was seen in Sampras, who fluked a wimbledon win vs Agassi ( easily the worst GS final Agassi ever played), didnt do squat for 2 years and then all sorts of controversy arose for him being a #1 without winning a GS for a couple of years. He too said that it was the loss to Edberg in the US open finals that lead him to focus on his career and 'figure out' what it takes to be #1. The rest is history. In anycase, Federer too won 13 of his 17 slams by the age of 27. My point was, 27+ is considered over the hill and not at your peak anymore in tennis. This is true for virtually all the players I've seen- Agassi is the only exception. another of gems.. Djokovic is like Safin...:hysterical::hysterical: Man, do you even understand Tennis? Djokovic is one of the most complete Tennis player of all time. He has everything that a Tennis player needs. Forehand, Backhand, Serve, Defense, attack everything and you compare him with a joker like Safin. If it was not for extremely strong field that Djoko faced in his peak years he would won 10 + grand slams easily. He can still won though. I use your posts the I way I use Catch-22. Whenever I need a laugh, I pick catch-22, will read 1-2 random pages and I'll get enough laughs. Same with your posts. I read one of 2 lines, and that is enough for :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer was lucky that he didn't play many serve and volleyers on grass. Stakhosky showed it last year. He is vulnerable to serve and volley on grass. Sampras would have pawned him in his prime. He was lucky that Federer got him on his worst phase of the career on a slow grass surface. Again two can play this game. :--D Federer when he was not at his prime, won vs Sampras on grass, at wimbledon, when Sampras too was not at his prime. Sampras today would eat Nadal for dinner at Wimbledon, even on the slower grass. As your article pointed out, the grass didnt just get slow overnight, it slowed over the span of several seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I highly doubt it. As i pointed out and you again kept quiet, the weak era argument is a fallacy. Federer made it look weak, if Nadal had been around there, he would've won just the French Open. He was around from 2005 and still only won the French Open in that period. you are wrong, he is around since 1986... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 another of gems.. Djokovic is like Safin...:hysterical::hysterical: Man, do you even understand Tennis? Djokovic is one of the most complete Tennis player of all time. He has everything that a Tennis player needs. Forehand, Backhand, Serve, Defense, attack everything and you compare him with a joker like Safin. If it was not for extremely strong field that Djoko faced in his peak years he would won 10 + grand slams easily. He can still won though. I use your posts the I way I use Catch-22. Whenever I need a laugh, I pick catch-22, will read 1-2 random pages and I'll get enough laughs. Same with your posts. I read one of 2 lines, and that is enough for :hysterical: Safin too was one of the most complete tennis players ever. He burst into the scene making Sampras look like a schoolboy, Agassi like a fat soccer mom. best doublehanded forehand I've seen. Amazing serve. Amazing forehand. The only difference between Safin and Nole is on critical points, Safin's brains would go to mush, Nole is tough as nails. The same was true for Ivanisevic, who would've won a lot more GSs if he wasnt so panicky. Kids like you who dont watch tennis and only read scores and stats shouldnt comment on how someone's game measures up against someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer when he was not at his prime, won vs Sampras on grass, at wimbledon, when Sampras too was not at his prime. Sampras today would eat Nadal for dinner at Wimbledon, even on the slower grass. As your article pointed out, the grass didnt just get slow overnight, it slowed over the span of several seasons. Mario Ancic booted him off Wimbldeon in 2002 playing serve and violley in the first round. Federer is lucky to be in the weak era with no true serve an volleyer beating his lapdogs mediocre players like Roddick, Hewitt and Nalbandians. Two can play this game. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 you are wrong' date=' he is around since 1986...[/quote'] Nadal started playing tennis in the womb ? Hadh ho gayee fangiri ki! :haha::haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer was around since 1998 but only won anything once the competition got delpleted in the transition period from 2003. Once true chamions like Nadal came he got his ass handed to him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Mario Ancic booted him off Wimbldeon in 2002 playing serve and violley in the first round. Federer is lucky to be in the weak era with no true serve an volleyer beating his lapdogs mediocre players like Roddick' date=' Hewitt and Nalbandians. Two can play this game. :hysterical:[/quote'] Roddick was a serve & volley player too. Federer has the serve and volley game to win wimbledon in any era. Nadal is not a serve & volley player, he would never have won wimbledon in the era of faster grass. Btw, whatever happened to your 'i respect Federer, dont diss him' mentality ? Standard kid, who talks more than he is capable of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer was around since 1998 but only won anything once the competition got delpleted in the transition period from 2003. Once true chamions like Nadal came he got his ass handed to him again. Once courts slowed down enough for claycourt Nadal to win outside of clay, Federer's dominance decreased. Yes, that is true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Roddick was a serve & volley player too. Federer has the serve and volley game to win wimbledon in any era. Nadal is not a serve & volley player, he would never have won wimbledon in the era of faster grass. Btw, whatever happened to your 'i respect Federer, dont diss him' mentality ? Standard kid, who talks more than he is capable of! Respect is earned not demanded. You were going on your biased views get ready to take something in return too. Two can play this game. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Once courts slowed down enough for claycourt Nadal to win outside of clay' date=' Federer's dominance decreased. Yes, that is true.[/quote'] Federer was getting beaten by teenager Nadal on hard courts in his absolute peak. Once Nadal matured he just murdered him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Respect is earned not demanded. You were going on your biased views get ready to take something in return too. Two can play this game. :hysterical: You claimed to respect Federer, i didnt demand it from you. And as a typical kid, your 'respect' turned out to be nothing more than just idle PR -talk. I am speaking from what i believe. You either lied earlier when you said you respect Federer or you are simply dissing Federer out of a childish necessity to feel better for being unable to take critique of your hero. Pick one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 You claimed to respect Federer, i didnt demand it from you. And as a typical kid, your 'respect' turned out to be nothing more than just idle PR -talk. I am speaking from what i believe. You either lied earlier when you said you respect Federer or you are simply dissing Federer out of a childish necessity to feel better for being unable to take critique of your hero. Pick one. I still respect Federer, no respect for Fedtards like you. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Federer was getting beaten by teenager Nadal on hard courts in his absolute peak. Once Nadal matured he just murdered him. Mostly on clay and on the other surfaces because of the slower courts and bigger balls. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Mostly on clay and on the other surfaces because of the slower courts and bigger balls. Yes he had bigger balls, no dispute there. Heart of a champion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 I still respect Federer' date=' no respect for Fedtards like you. :hysterical:[/quote'] So you respect Federer by dissing him ? Again kid, make some sense. You cant claim to respect someone and then diss them to 'get back at their fans'. Thats called being a childish moron who has no convictions or simply indulged in some PR speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Yes he had bigger balls' date=' no dispute there. Heart of a champion.[/quote'] Too bad he has serve and volley of a girl though. No amount of balls is going to compensate for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 So you respect Federer by dissing him ? Again kid, make some sense. You cant claim to respect someone and then diss them to 'get back at their fans'. Thats called being a childish moron who has no convictions or simply indulged in some PR speak. Yes the great man had to feel some burn for retards fanboys like you. My apologies to the Maestro. No respect for Fedtards however. :hysterical: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now