When Fed was 24-26
I think we will know more next year and compare a little
I think we will know more next year and compare a little
-
-
Maybe just set your digital Casio to beep in 365 days and then you can bump this thread?
Comment -
Remains to be seen I guess. As of today, 9/13/11, Roger Federer is still the greatest person to play the game.Comment -
I need to see if Joker maintains this level for another 24+ months before I deem him king of anything.
I remember in 2005 people were anointing Jhonny Peralta the new King of shortstops, that didn't work out too wellComment -
Is JJ getting paid double to make tennis threads this week or something?Comment -
In all seriousness, last year there was a huge thread where we discussing the same thing but it was Nadal vs Fed. Nadal was on a tear and we were all throwing out stats about what they both had accomplished at the same age (Nadal won that contest). But really I don't think these comparisons can be really done until the players being judged have retired. What makes someone great doesn't just come from what two people did at age 21 for example. It depends on so many other factors ie the level of competition, injuries, if they sustained their dominance or did it just come in a streak(s), were their opponents peaking or declining in their career, etc... A lot is being made of Djoko beating Fed but we all know Fed's a step away from retirement and that's been obvious to anyone who watches tennis regularly. Nadal isn't right this year for whatever reason. That takes nothing away from Djoko - for all we know Nadal's burnt out and will never win another Grand Slam. But we won't know until they've all retired and we can see what they've managed to achieve throughout their whole career. Not just by little snapshots of time.Comment -
I think Nadal is fine. There is just no denying that on hardcourt he has run into a better player. Clay is different.
Just because Nadal won 1 us open I don't think people were really expecting him to win every year.Comment -
Roger Federer back in his prime had no competition. That is why he was good and he won all those slams.
Put Roger Federer in the Pete Sampras and Agassi Era, he would not win as much.Comment -
Fed still can beat Joker which is amazing
He pushes him more than NadalComment -
Absolutely not!!!. Federer had a window of dominance and excellence that spanned 5 years. The past two years have not been a failure by any measure except his own. He is still right there with the top 2, even if he has lost a step and the others have gained on him. Rogers mark that he left is more of longevity and sustained high level of play, which still has not diminished. Joker has a great start and is the most dominant player this season, but must continue this for another 2-3 years to be in the conversation.Comment -
Not at all, Djokovic has only strong the last 12 months. Federer has proven for several years.Comment -
I wasn't even referring to him losing the US Open this year as really you're right - no one should be expecting him to dominate on that surface. I was more talking about him entering tournaments and losing to GGL, Melzer, Dodig, etc.... Nadal doesn't enter tournaments for match practice. So for him to enter 17 tournaments and only win 4: 3 clay (2 of them beating Ferrer) and one hard beating Monfils, is a definite drop of his results in previous years. If he had kept losing to the Fed's and Novak's then fine, but some of the guys he lost to is absolutely out of the norm for him. Maybe it was just a letdown after having such a strong couple of years prior but since he's even said in interviews that something's been a bit screwy with his head, I think it's a bit more than that. That's why I think it's too hard to judge while people are still playing.Comment -
The Borg era had the deepest talent pool with Connors, Mac, Becker, Borg, etc. etc. etc.Comment -
Yeah that was pretty amazing.
I was saying to someone this afternoon: Fed's going to retire and Nadal always seems to be teetering on the brink of a serious injury. Imagine they both left the sport within 6 months from now. Who the f would be left to compete with Novak if he maintained even close to this level of play? I can't think of one person. They're either mental head cases, specialise on one surface ie Ferrer or they're just not consistent enough to compete with him.Comment -
The Joker this year was probably the most dominant player of all time. We'll really see how good he is next year if he can keep this winning up.Comment -
Oh, and what about Sampras, and his Austrailian Open title againt Cedric Pioline?
And then there was his title against super stiff---Todd Martin.
Oh, and let's not forget Sampras Aussie Open loss to that Tennis Legend---Karol Kucera. For half a decade in the 1990's Agassi was in the tank---so Sampras had to compete against Marcelo Rios, ya remember him? Thought so.
This idea that Sampras competed against the best is ridiculous. Agassi disappeared for 4 years, and that left the likes of Rios, Patrick Rafter, Todd Martin running around. Not exactly Nadal and Djokovic is it?
Oh, and when Sampras was 27 and was riding a 31 match winning streak at Wimbledon, want to guess who took him out? It was Roger Federer.Comment -
Did you watch tennis between 2003-2006? Roddick and Hewitt in their primes were both legit contenders and both were Grand Slam Champions. And Federer's prime extended IMO to at least 2009. So throw in Nadal, Murray and Djokovic who all were solid players during Federer's run. I'd question whether you watch tennis brother man if you don't think Federer is the best to ever play the game. Guy was on another level of existence during his best years, much like Djokovic was for this year.Comment -
Well, I would agree with Raven66. You cannot compare Roddick, Hewitt or Safin with such Legends as Sampras or Agassi were.
And Fed came in when those 2 guys were already on their way going out. Still you cannot blame Fed for that and still he is the best our eyes have ever witnessed. And Djoko has a huge mountains to climbe to even get there. I think next year Djoko will drop his game and Nadal, Federer and Murray will be back on his back.Comment -
Djokovic > CompetitionComment -
Agassi wasn't around from the end of 1996 until he won the French in 1999. In his book, Agassi admitted in his book those were his crystal meth days.
Imagine how many majors Fed or Nadal would have had by now if one of them checked out for 3 years and became a meth head?
I am still waiting for this list of players that were comparable to what we see today? I mean, Todd Martin made 2 grand slam finals in the late 1990's, does anyone really believe that Martin would be able to knock off Fed, Nadal or Djokovic to even get to a final?Comment -
Well, honestly Djokovic is not that much better than Fed at the moment, and he is as good as it gets. Don't know if people appreciate how close was Djokovic to a Grand Slam this year, but then again he was very close to losing to Fed in the semi of the US Open. Federer is still by far the greatest tennis player, Djoko will have to work very hard to get there.Comment -
Sampras's biggest adversary was Agassi who was never serious about the game until the late 90's. You can see all the spurts where Agassi applied himself. Whenever he was serious about tennis Sampras usually lost (one exception being Pete's last run at the Open). Pete was simply the best server to ever play the game. His placement was out of this world and he was a tremendous serve and volley player with a solid forehand. Which is one of the biggest reasons he never sniffed a french final.Comment -
Actually in 1996, Agassi lost to Chang at the Australian Open on purpose, he did not want to play Boris Becker in the final.
In 1997 he stated using meth.
In 1998 Agassi won 5 titles and jumped from 110 to 6 in the World Rankings.
He did not disappear for 3 years, get your facts straight.Comment -
This has turned into a great pissing match. Gold strikes again.Comment -
Lendl actually is just a shade under Fed
He lost so many finals to great players
Lendl got to 8 or 9 straight us open finals
unreal
Joker is much more fierce than Fed, more intimidating
Fed has more talentComment -
Djokovic is still building his resume.Comment -
nadal is really his only competition. i think he'll be #1 for a while because he has the recipe for beating nadal. jj said it yesterday, someone else will have to take him out of the tournaments early for nadal to win.Comment -
Going on pure stats, Djokovic, barring some horrible breakdown before or after the finals in London, is on course to have the greatest year in tennis history, at least in the Open era. Maybe Fed in 2006 or Laver in 69, but Djokovic going 64-2 in a season and capturing 3 slams competing against the likes of Nadal, Fed and Murray is phenomenal. Fed in 2006 was unstoppable but Nadal did take 4 of their 6 matches that year, but that was an incredible year for him.
You never know Djokoivc may have a breakdown before London, playing in China is never easy but I just dont see it happening.Comment -
Federer who was past his prime was one point away from beating novak at his prime....go figure.
Federer at his prime was the best player ever seen in the history of tennis.Comment
