Tweet
The fact that a 34 year old Federer is able to go pretty much neck and neck with him in Grand Slam Finals right now tells you the answer.
-
-
Federer had MUCH BETTER competition to go up against then. Djokovic's best competition is a 34 year old Federer, a past prime Nadal, inconsistent Murray who has never been able to get it done on a consistent basis, and Wawrinka.Comment
-
06 Federer, but prime Henman would have given him a run for his money.Comment
-
And who did Federer go up against? Marcos Baghdatis? Guillermo Coria? Andy Roddick?Originally posted by 4Corners View Post
I think Federer played in the worst era possible! It was when Djokovic and Nadal started hitting their prime in 2010 that Federer all of a sudden had a hard time winning.
Since 2010, Federer has 1 GS and that's Wimbledon 2012. I refuse to believe it's because of his age. He's just playing better opposition.Comment
-
During Federer's prime, 2004-2010, he had to beat these guys.....
Andy Roddick
Marat Safin
Lleyton Hewitt
Andre Agassi (older)
Rafael Nadal
Novak Djokovic
Andy Murray
Since Djokovic started winning he's had.....
Rafael Nadal (good, now a shell of his former self)
Roger Federer (older)
Andy Murray
Stan Wawrinka
So Federer had to beat the absolute best versions of Nadal. He had to beat another aging legend in Agassi. He had to beat guys who hung around the top and were very good for at least a few years in Safin, Roddick, Hewitt. He had to beat young Murray and Djokovic themselves too.
Djokovic has had to beat Murray, who Federer also beat. Older Federer. Nadal, who Federer beat better versions of, and Wawrinka.
It's not too close really.Comment
-
-
It's all a mater of perspective. Federer's best years were when Andy Roddick was hanging around and kept making it to the finals (just off the top of my head without checking), and Roddick is/was always a flawed player.Originally posted by 4Corners View Post
The only solid non-debatable case that you can make for Federer is his longevity. His playing style makes him the Hopkins of Tennis relative to his consistent success on a high level (even when losing matches). He is less injury prone and less wear and tear on his body than Nadal and Djoko. (Sidenote: Though the case is still out on Djokovic as far as longevity - as he is way more agile than Nadal. Nadal always seemed like a brute who lifts weights, while Djoko is the Yoga guy who stretches and does agility exercises to minimize tearing something on the court. )
However, you do not have a non-debatable case that Federer is better prime vs prime, which is what this thread is about. It's not about accomplishments or who won more, but prime for prime. The athletic skilled guys (Nadal and Djokovic) always gave him problems, even when they themselves weren't at their absolute prime. I remember Djokovic giving him hell 5 years ago at the Australian Open.
I'm also gonna go read this right after submitting this post: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djokov...ederer_rivalryLast edited by cupocity303; 11-10-2015, 11:45 PM.Comment
-
Andy Roddick didn't have much besides a strong serve, he was a slightly better version of Ivo Karlovic.Originally posted by 4Corners View Post
Safin and Hewitt? C'mon now... what's their career winning percentage?
Look at the guys that Federer won his titles against, these are some truly unknown players that wouldn't be able to survive in this era. David Nalbandian, Marcos Baghdatis, Guillermo Coria, Mark Philippoussis and he should thank Andy Roddick for 4 of those titles.
He was a great player in possibly the weakest era ever and he has 1 GS title since 2010...Comment
-
Cuban Linx,
do you think that Djokovic will break down like Nadal, or can he show longevity?Comment
-
2006 Federer is GOAT...Comment
Comment