US OPEN 2010

[Ong_dynasty]

Just a few questions for the Tennis Historians.
Is Nadal the first player to win 3 grand slams in once season in 3 different surfaces?
Is Nadal the youngest to win all majors?

[oberyn3]

Just a few questions for the Tennis Historians.

Not a historian, but I'll give this a shot.

Is Nadal the first player to win 3 grand slams in once season in 3 different surfaces?

Depends on how you define different surfaces.

If you don't differentiate between Rebound Ace and Deco Turf (two different types of hardcourt surfaces), then yes.

If you do differentiate between Rebound Ace and Deco Turf, then, Wilander won on three different surfaces: Australian Open (rebound ace), French Open (clay), and U.S. Open (deco turf) in 1988 and Federer did the same thing in 2004, 2006, and 2007.

Is Nadal the youngest to win all majors?

He's the youngest man to do this in the Open Era (i.e., post 1968). Budge and Laver were both younger when they did it as amateurs.

[Dr Positivity]

The Australian Open will be one of the most important grand slams ever. Basically difference between 3 and 5 straight majors

[oberyn3]

The Australian Open will be one of the most important grand slams ever. Basically difference between 3 and 5 straight majors

That would (obviously) be a huge win for Nadal if he can pull it off. I wish we didn't have to wait 4 months for the Aussie Open to get here.

I still don't know if it will beat the buildup heading into the French Open in 2006 and 2007. Federer was gunning for 4 straight majors heading into both of those slams, too. In 2006, he and Nadal played a 5-set final in Rome (Fed had 2 match points in the 5th) with Nadal pulling it out in a tiebreaker. Both guys pulled out of Hamburg the next week and this match hastened the end of Masters series finals being best of 5 sets.

In 2007, Federer ended Nadal's clay court streak (in Hamburg) heading into the French Open. Fed won the last 2 sets 6-2, 6-0.

It's an interesting role reversal. Federer will likely be the #2 seed (Djokovic has a ton of points to "defend" the rest of the year) and he'll be the defending champion at the slam Nadal needs to win to pull off 4 straight.

[Slava]

Federer could easily be seeded 3rd for Aus open since Djoko will be playing more tournaments to close out the year and I can see him winning a lot in his current form.

[Doctor MJ]

The Australian Open will be one of the most important grand slams ever. Basically difference between 3 and 5 straight majors

That would (obviously) be a huge win for Nadal if he can pull it off. I wish we didn't have to wait 4 months for the Aussie Open to get here.

I still don't know if it will beat the buildup heading into the French Open in 2006 and 2007. Federer was gunning for 4 straight majors heading into both of those slams, too. In 2006, he and Nadal played a 5-set final in Rome (Fed had 2 match points in the 5th) with Nadal pulling it out in a tiebreaker. Both guys pulled out of Hamburg the next week and this match hastened the end of Masters series finals being best of 5 sets.

In 2007, Federer ended Nadal's clay court streak (in Hamburg) heading into the French Open. Fed won the last 2 sets 6-2, 6-0.

It's an interesting role reversal. Federer will likely be the #2 seed (Djokovic has a ton of points to "defend" the rest of the year) and he'll be the defending champion at the slam Nadal needs to win to pull off 4 straight.

I'd agree that it won't be bigger than those Frenches. That was Player A who doesn't lose on clay against Player B who doesn't lose to anyone on any surface except Player A on clay. 3 years in a row where that rang true, each year the rivalry gaining steam and building toward that one match.

What we're seeing now is Nadal hopefully building to a Federer type run, but there's no "Nadal" type guy in his way to make a GOAT rivalry out of.

[Marmoset]

What we're seeing now is Nadal hopefully building to a Federer type run, but there's no "Nadal" type guy in his way to make a GOAT rivalry out of.

Hopefully that player arrives sometime soon. As great as Federer is and has been, it's going to be very hard for him to stay as one of the top 3 or 4 players for much longer. He might be the rare guy who can do it into his 30s, but just based on history we know it's very unlikely (and I'm a huge Federer fan).

It's worth considering that the arrival of the next star can happen a lot sooner than we expect. Nadal virtually came out of nowhere to dominate clay, and eventually the ATP. Federer was a top-15 player for several years before he suddenly jumped up and became a dominant player. One of those top-15 or top-20 guys we have now might get over the hump and find what it takes to be an elite player, or a young kid we've barely heard of could shock everyone. In the former category, I think Murray and Cilic (and a healthy del Potro) are guys we shouldn't be writing off just yet.

On the match itself, Nadal was simply outstanding. I thought Djokovic played one of his best matches ever and yet he still lost in 4 sets - and it didn't even seem that close for a lot of the match.

[Ong_dynasty]

What we're seeing now is Nadal hopefully building to a Federer type run, but there's no "Nadal" type guy in his way to make a GOAT rivalry out of.

Hopefully that player arrives sometime soon. As great as Federer is and has been, it's going to be very hard for him to stay as one of the top 3 or 4 players for much longer. He might be the rare guy who can do it into his 30s, but just based on history we know it's very unlikely (and I'm a huge Federer fan).

It's worth considering that the arrival of the next star can happen a lot sooner than we expect. Nadal virtually came out of nowhere to dominate clay, and eventually the ATP. Federer was a top-15 player for several years before he suddenly jumped up and became a dominant player. One of those top-15 or top-20 guys we have now might get over the hump and find what it takes to be an elite player, or a young kid we've barely heard of could shock everyone. In the former category, I think Murray and Cilic (and a healthy del Potro) are guys we shouldn't be writing off just yet.

On the match itself, Nadal was simply outstanding. I thought Djokovic played one of his best matches ever and yet he still lost in 4 sets - and it didn't even seem that close for a lot of the match.

That will happen in due time.
People forget Federer had 2 or 3 years of no competition before Nadal was considered a opposition.

[Doctor MJ]

That will happen in due time.
People forget Federer had 2 or 3 years of no competition before Nadal was considered a opposition.

Oh I think you're both too optimistic.

Can it happen? Certainly.

Do we typically have two guys at the Fed/Nadal level competing against each other? Not even close. Federer's level of domination easily surpasses everyone since Laver, Nadal's getting there - and even before that Nadal won his first 4 French Opens. We are incredibly lucky to have 2 guys of this caliber in this generation, and should not expect that we get players like that every few years.

Also, I take issue with the idea that Fed had no competition before Nadal, let alone for 2/3 years. Yes in 2004 Federer was superdominant and there was no one of Nadal's caliber, but people have this tendency to think that what Federer dealt with was incredibly weak historically and it's simply not true. Who did Sampras beat in the finals the one year he won 3 majors? Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic. Fed in 2004 beat Safin, Roddick, Hewitt. Far stronger competition. The competition just looks worse because Federer dominated them so much more thoroughly that the bests of previous generations dominated their opponents.

[Ong_dynasty]

That will happen in due time.
People forget Federer had 2 or 3 years of no competition before Nadal was considered a opposition.

Oh I think you're both too optimistic.

Can it happen? Certainly.

Do we typically have two guys at the Fed/Nadal level competing against each other? Not even close. Federer's level of domination easily surpasses everyone since Laver, Nadal's getting there - and even before that Nadal won his first 4 French Opens. We are incredibly lucky to have 2 guys of this caliber in this generation, and should not expect that we get players like that every few years.

Also, I take issue with the idea that Fed had no competition before Nadal, let alone for 2/3 years. Yes in 2004 Federer was superdominant and there was no one of Nadal's caliber, but people have this tendency to think that what Federer dealt with was incredibly weak historically and it's simply not true. Who did Sampras beat in the finals the one year he won 3 majors? Pioline, Martin, Ivanisevic. Fed in 2004 beat Safin, Roddick, Hewitt. Far stronger competition. The competition just looks worse because Federer dominated them so much more thoroughly that the bests of previous generations dominated their opponents.

See, I even consider the first few years when Nadal on tour was no "real"competition (outside of the french ofcourse).
I would take this current batch of players over those anyday. Outside of Safin (who was good but either always injured or just not have the mindset), the other players have holes in their game.
Ofcourse this is all subjective, but I highly doubt players with holes in their game like Roddick and Hewitt would even crack the top 5 with the current crop.
I mean, surely its no coincidence that Federer literally obliterates those opponents compared to the players now. That is why I consider this year much more impressive than some of federer's dominance.
Styles of play also suited federer, IMO the only player's style who could trouble Federer was Safin and he was not always right.

[Doctor MJ]

See, I even consider the first few years when Nadal on tour was no "real"competition (outside of the french ofcourse).
I would take this current batch of players over those anyday. Outside of Safin (who was good but either always injured or just not have the mindset), the other players have holes in their game.
Ofcourse this is all subjective, but I highly doubt players with holes in their game like Roddick and Hewitt would even crack the top 5 with the current crop.
I mean, surely its no coincidence that Federer literally obliterates those opponents compared to the players now. That is why I consider this year much more impressive than some of federer's dominance.
Styles of play also suited federer, IMO the only player's style who could trouble Federer was Safin and he was not always right.

I think the key thing is that people dramatically overrated the current batch compared to before. Andy Roddick is 5-2 career against Djokovic, who is the very best of this generations competition.

Federer. Consider that Federer's total dominance lasted through 2007. Who did he lose to in 2008?

Djokovic
Murray, 3 times
Fish
Roddick
Nadal, 4 times
Stepanek
Simon, 2 times
Blake, 2 times

Fish, Stepanek, Simon, Blake - do you really see these guys as "next generation" guys that would have kept him from dominance before? Seems obvious he was just playing worse.

Also, since their on that list and relevant to conversation: What about Fed vs Djoko and Murray? Fed has had the clear edge over Djoko despite playing past his peak. Until last week, Fed was 4-1 against Djoko in majors, losing only when he was sick with mono. Murray is actually a true mismatch for Fed, but still, Murray's had zero success against Federer at majors, never even winning a set. In short whatever struggles Fed's had against these guys, they're quite minor. Competition got better when they arrived, but the difference for Federer isn't THAT big.

[Ong_dynasty]

See, I even consider the first few years when Nadal on tour was no "real"competition (outside of the french ofcourse).
I would take this current batch of players over those anyday. Outside of Safin (who was good but either always injured or just not have the mindset), the other players have holes in their game.
Ofcourse this is all subjective, but I highly doubt players with holes in their game like Roddick and Hewitt would even crack the top 5 with the current crop.
I mean, surely its no coincidence that Federer literally obliterates those opponents compared to the players now. That is why I consider this year much more impressive than some of federer's dominance.
Styles of play also suited federer, IMO the only player's style who could trouble Federer was Safin and he was not always right.

I think the key thing is that people dramatically overrated the current batch compared to before. Andy Roddick is 5-2 career against Djokovic, who is the very best of this generations competition.

Federer. Consider that Federer's total dominance lasted through 2007. Who did he lose to in 2008?

Djokovic
Murray, 3 times
Fish
Roddick
Nadal, 4 times
Stepanek
Simon, 2 times
Blake, 2 times

Fish, Stepanek, Simon, Blake - do you really see these guys as "next generation" guys that would have kept him from dominance before? Seems obvious he was just playing worse.

Also, since their on that list and relevant to conversation: What about Fed vs Djoko and Murray? Fed has had the clear edge over Djoko despite playing past his peak. Until last week, Fed was 4-1 against Djoko in majors, losing only when he was sick with mono. Murray is actually a true mismatch for Fed, but still, Murray's had zero success against Federer at majors, never even winning a set. In short whatever struggles Fed's had against these guys, they're quite minor. Competition got better when they arrived, but the difference for Federer isn't THAT big.

Well that is just one match up.
Roddick v Murray is 3-5, v Del potro is 0-3, and 2-19 against Federer (bear in mind Nadal has to go through Federer as well)
Then you look at say Hewitt (who was say the 3rd best in that era right?)
Murray is 1-0, Djokovic is 4-1, Del Potro is 1-1 tied and federer who is 17-6 up.
the likes of Blake and Fish are more the older generation.
You can make an argument that it is subjective,
But i just believe not only is the current crop better it is deeper and there is also what people consider the best player of all time in his peak that he had to go through.
While the likes of Agassi and Sampras pretty much retired or in the mid-30's when federer was hitting his prime (if you think federer is past his prime now, what do you think those guys were).

Let me make this clear, I agree that Federer (at this present time is the best player of all time). But I think you have to give great credit to Nadal and the challenges that he had to face, compared to Federer. As I said, Nadal had to go through Federer, who did Federer have to go through Roddick?

[Doctor MJ]

Federer had to go through Nadal. Nadal's been the #2 player in the world in every year Federer was #1 except 2004. Nadal's #1 one years will almost certainly not be so dominated by Federer.

Even with the supposedly vastly superior competition, up until this year, Federer was an absolute lock to either win every major tournament, or lose to the champ, and losing to someone other than Nadal happened all of 3 times in 5 years. One of those was to a previous era guy, one was when he had mono, and of course one was to Del Potro who may indeed prove something spectacular but up until this point he's a one tournament wonder who affected both Federer & Nadal the same. That's not a whole lot to go on to say "See, Federer was only dominating before because of lack of competition".

Re: Matchups. Roddick is 8-7 against the two big guys of the new superior generation of also-rans. I understand that's just 2 matchups, but it's rings false to me to pretend like he's some vastly inferior creature when you see that.

Hewitt? Peaked in '01-02 had a short prime, and you're comparing his head to head against guys who came on in '07-08? Do you understand the affects of career arc? How to guys with identical arcs shifted by time can result in lopsided head to heads?

[Ong_dynasty]

Federer had to go through Nadal. Nadal's been the #2 player in the world in every year Federer was #1 except 2004. Nadal's #1 one years will almost certainly not be so dominated by Federer.

Federer did not have to go through Nadal. He was already on top. What I am trying to say is that to become the #1 seed, he had to overthrown what people consider the best tennis player of all time (which I do as well). So he had a tougher mountain to climb. I compare it to trying to be heavyweight champion now and in the late 80's. in the 80's there was an undisputed champion that you had to overthrown, now there really is not a force to overthrown so basically the champion became who ever was the best of a average bunch (I do not fully like the analogy, because I still think Federer is the best player at this present time and feel I am underrating his achievements, but the example is relevant).And even I know Nadal was not really a great player since 2007 earliest. you can bring up 2005 and 2006 but he was really no more than a redbull version of hewitt. He was a clay court specialist. The only time which I considered Nadal actually becoming a great player was when he actually threatened Federer in Wimbledon.

Even with the supposedly vastly superior competition, up until this year, Federer was an absolute lock to either win every major tournament, or lose to the champ, and losing to someone other than Nadal happened all of 3 times in 5 years. One of those was to a previous era guy, one was when he had mono, and of course one was to Del Potro who may indeed prove something spectacular but up until this point he's a one tournament wonder who affected both Federer & Nadal the same. That's not a whole lot to go on to say "See, Federer was only dominating before because of lack of competition".

You know what, I may have underrated Roddick. My problem with Roddick was the glaring holes in his game that he was never really able to fix (his net game is not that good, even though he has the best serve.) But the problem is Federer had Roddick. Nadal has Roddick, Murray, Federer and maybe Del Potro. You also have to consider the depth of the circuit. Well if you use that, then Nadal has not lost a final outside of Federer. Not bad right?


Hewitt? Peaked in '01-02 had a short prime, and you're comparing his head to head against guys who came on in '07-08? Do you understand the affects of career arc? How to guys with identical arcs shifted by time can result in lopsided head to heads?

If you are going to use that, then how can use Nadal in between 2004 and 2007? as someone as comepetition to Federer when he was just learning his trade in the other surfaces.
Well then who would you use as the depth of that generation? an old agassi? an injured safin? doesnt that highlight the lack of depth in that generation?

[Dr Positivity]

The Australian Open will be one of the most important grand slams ever. Basically difference between 3 and 5 straight majors

That would (obviously) be a huge win for Nadal if he can pull it off. I wish we didn't have to wait 4 months for the Aussie Open to get here.

I still don't know if it will beat the buildup heading into the French Open in 2006 and 2007. Federer was gunning for 4 straight majors heading into both of those slams, too. In 2006, he and Nadal played a 5-set final in Rome (Fed had 2 match points in the 5th) with Nadal pulling it out in a tiebreaker. Both guys pulled out of Hamburg the next week and this match hastened the end of Masters series finals being best of 5 sets.

In 2007, Federer ended Nadal's clay court streak (in Hamburg) heading into the French Open. Fed won the last 2 sets 6-2, 6-0.

It's an interesting role reversal. Federer will likely be the #2 seed (Djokovic has a ton of points to "defend" the rest of the year) and he'll be the defending champion at the slam Nadal needs to win to pull off 4 straight.

Yeah... the thing that makes this one more "important" though is while Federer was battling against himself for glory, Nadal is battling against Federer's legacy, with possible GOAT stakes

[Doctor MJ]

Federer did not have to go through Nadal. He was already on top. What I am trying to say is that to become the #1 seed, he had to overthrown what people consider the best tennis player of all time (which I do as well). So he had a tougher mountain to climb. I compare it to trying to be heavyweight champion now and in the late 80's. in the 80's there was an undisputed champion that you had to overthrown, now there really is not a force to overthrown so basically the champion became who ever was the best of a average bunch (I do not fully like the analogy, because I still think Federer is the best player at this present time and feel I am underrating his achievements, but the example is relevant).And even I know Nadal was not really a great player since 2007 earliest. you can bring up 2005 and 2006 but he was really no more than a redbull version of hewitt. He was a clay court specialist. The only time which I considered Nadal actually becoming a great player was when he actually threatened Federer in Wimbledon.

Your "going through the champ" thinking doesn't really make any sense. Players don't simply have to go through a player to become a champ, they have to go through them the entire time they play. Of course the fact that Nadal was the clear #2 for so long doesn't necessarily mean that Federer had it tougher but I'm trying to be succinct.

Nadal not great before 2007? That's silly. First off you're dismissing 2006 when he got to the final at Wimbledon and took a set off Federer. Making the finals at both the French and Wimbledon is one of the great feats in history. Second, if we're talking about overall what players had to face, well Federer had to face Nadal in '05 & '06, and even then Nadal was absolutely insane on clay.

There's a continual tendency to want to dismiss dominance as "lack of competition" and generally it's wrongheaded. In normal tennis seasons, the best players in the world aren't keeping each other from winning big tournaments all the time. Sampras & Agassi were the two best players of the previous era, but they met in Grand Slam finals 5 times in 13 years, and it wasn't because they were constantly losing to 3/4 seeds in the semi-finals. They were losing to lesser players, and doing it earlier on. (Note: meeting at other points simply means they weren't the top 2 seeds, which only happens because again they were losing against weaker players)

It is not reasonable to assert that for no reason, the general level of competition resulted in there being a dozen guys worth of "real competition" in one era, and none in the next. It is the outliers that vary dramatically in ability from era to era, not the also-rans.

You know what, I may have underrated Roddick. My problem with Roddick was the glaring holes in his game that he was never really able to fix (his net game is not that good, even though he has the best serve.) But the problem is Federer had Roddick. Nadal has Roddick, Murray, Federer and maybe Del Potro. You also have to consider the depth of the circuit. Well if you use that, then Nadal has not lost a final outside of Federer. Not bad right?

Putting these other guys on Nadal's side and acting like Federer didn't face them doesn't make sense.

We know simply based on looking at Federer's performance against the tier below the guys mentioned that Federer's peak went through 2007. And we know that Fed still kept being the best or 2nd best guy at every major until May 2010 with all those guys in play PLUS Nadal. If sub-peak-Fed can still do that with all this new "competition" then, then the new competition clearly isn't something that should be used as a huge bone to throw on Nadal's side of the argument.

The mentioning of Nadal not losing in the final to anyone not named Fed drives me nuts. Not that it's worthless. It's great. In terms of mental fortitude, Nadal is unbelievable. Clearly superior to Fed, who himself is a hell of a lot stronger than the Djokos, Murrays, and Roddicks of the world. But it's always better to lose in the finals to a superstar, than to lose before the finals to someone weaker.

If you are going to use that, then how can use Nadal in between 2004 and 2007? as someone as comepetition to Federer when he was just learning his trade in the other surfaces.
Well then who would you use as the depth of that generation? an old agassi? an injured safin? doesnt that highlight the lack of depth in that generation?

You ask how I can dismiss the old Hewitt but count young Nadal, but we aren't talking about them the same way, and even still they clearly aren't comparable players. You are using old Hewitt to say that peak Hewitt sucked compared to Djoko/Murray/etc, I'm not trying to do something comparable with young Nadal. And as I said: Young Nadal on clay was incredible, and he reached the grass major finals in just his 2nd year as the "clay" guy.

[Ong_dynasty]

Your "going through the champ" thinking doesn't really make any sense. Players don't simply have to go through a player to become a champ, they have to go through them the entire time they play. Of course the fact that Nadal was the clear #2 for so long doesn't necessarily mean that Federer had it tougher but I'm trying to be succinct.

Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. I am a big believer that it for federer to be deemed the best player in Tennis, there was no one in his way. While Nadal had Federer. Which is why I rate Nadal's achievement (to date) compared to Federer's at 24 higher (ofcourse he still has to continue on).

Nadal not great before 2007? That's silly. First off you're dismissing 2006 when he got to the final at Wimbledon and took a set off Federer. Making the finals at both the French and Wimbledon is one of the great feats in history. Second, if we're talking about overall what players had to face, well Federer had to face Nadal in '05 & '06, and even then Nadal was absolutely insane on clay.

I still stand by this statement, I have literally watch Nadal from the beginning and to say that you would have thought he would be the player he is now is laughable. pre-2007, he still rarely flattened his shots, his back hand was exactly the same, he rarely came to the net and his serve was sometimes not even hitting 3 digits. He was a steroid version of Hewitt. Great defense but did not really have winning shots. I mean in wimbledon he almost lost in the 3rd match (I think) and was 2 sets to love down. I mean, you wouldnt really say he was a "great" player. Even in Clay at the time he was vulnerable player (compared to what he was post 2007 / now). i still think, Federer's best chance to win the French against Nadal was 2005 (but lost in the semis (federer that is)) and 2006 where he was a "good" player rather than "great".
With regards to the wimbledon / french finals achievement (which is great and I have always said that). That is also why I rate Nadal's achievements greater, since not only did he do it twice. But in once he had to beat Federer and the other Federer was in the competitions. While the only time Federer won the double was when Nadal was injured and did not compete.
Now you can make an argument that history books will still say Federer won the french wimbledon double, but I still have a little * since Federer did not have to go through Nadal.


There's a continual tendency to want to dismiss dominance as "lack of competition" and generally it's wrongheaded. In normal tennis seasons, the best players in the world aren't keeping each other from winning big tournaments all the time. Sampras & Agassi were the two best players of the previous era, but they met in Grand Slam finals 5 times in 13 years, and it wasn't because they were constantly losing to 3/4 seeds in the semi-finals. They were losing to lesser players, and doing it earlier on. (Note: meeting at other points simply means they weren't the top 2 seeds, which only happens because again they were losing against weaker players)

I am not dismissing Federer. As I said before I have rated him the best player of alltime in 2007, even before beating Sampras. I am just highlighting why I think Nadal's current achievements are better.

Putting these other guys on Nadal's side and acting like Federer didn't face them doesn't make sense.

We know simply based on looking at Federer's performance against the tier below the guys mentioned that Federer's peak went through 2007. And we know that Fed still kept being the best or 2nd best guy at every major until May 2010 with all those guys in play PLUS Nadal. If sub-peak-Fed can still do that with all this new "competition" then, then the new competition clearly isn't something that should be used as a huge bone to throw on Nadal's side of the argument.

I am not saying that Federer did not go against these players and does not have an impressive record against them. What I am trying to say is that Nadal's first 8 or so Grandslams are more impressive since he had to go through Federer / stronger competition.
Also, if you are using sub-peak fed for your argument, can i not use pre-peak Nadal? (Which I think he was before 2007 and maybe half of 2007).

The mentioning of Nadal not losing in the final to anyone not named Fed drives me nuts. Not that it's worthless. It's great. In terms of mental fortitude, Nadal is unbelievable. Clearly superior to Fed, who himself is a hell of a lot stronger than the Djokos, Murrays, and Roddicks of the world. But it's always better to lose in the finals to a superstar, than to lose before the finals to someone weaker.
The only reason I brought this up, is because you brought up how impressive it is that Federer has only lost 3 finals not named Nadal.

You ask how I can dismiss the old Hewitt but count young Nadal, but we aren't talking about them the same way, and even still they clearly aren't comparable players. You are using old Hewitt to say that peak Hewitt sucked compared to Djoko/Murray/etc, I'm not trying to do something comparable with young Nadal. And as I said: Young Nadal on clay was incredible, and he reached the grass major finals in just his 2nd year as the "clay" guy.

Well we have to agree to disagree with regards to Young Nadal. as "incredible" as he was in your view. I still think there were major holes in his game and no where near the player that he is now.
As I said, the only reason I brought up Hewitt was because he was the only player I can think of outside of Roddick in which I deemed the "weaker" era / where Federer initially showed his dominance. As I said, if you would like to provide any other player in that era who you consider good outside of Roddick / Federer, please feel free to do so. I really cannot think of any.

[oberyn3]

The competition argument is, pretty much by definition, a circular one. Federer's competition is deemed "weak" because they couldn't beat Federer. This, in turn, supposedly diminishes Federer's greatness. So, the way for Federer to have proven his greatness would have been to lose more often? How does that make any sense? Seriously, it's an unaswerable question. It's impossible to know how one generation's players stack up against another generation's. It's not like looking at years in which competition was inarguably diluted (sports during World War II for example).

The only criticism I've seen that's seemed somewhat interesting is when one looks at the mini-generation between Sampras and Federer. These are the guys born from 1975 to 1978. It includes guys like Kuerten, Moya, Haas, and Phillippoussis. Through a combination of injuries, apathy, etc., these guys, en masse, never achieved what they seemed capable of achieving. That mini-generation faded away right when they should have been in their prime. Perhaps the landscape from 2002 to 2006 or so might have looked a lot different with a healthy Kuerten or a healthy and motivated Phillippoussis. Then again, it might have looked exactly the same.

[Ong_dynasty]

The competition argument is, pretty much by definition, a circular one. Federer's competition is deemed "weak" because they couldn't beat Federer. This, in turn, supposedly diminishes Federer's greatness. So, the way for Federer to have proven his greatness would have been to lose more often? How does that make any sense? Seriously, it's an unaswerable question. It's impossible to know how one generation's players stack up against another generation's. It's not like looking at years in which competition was inarguably diluted (sports during World War II for example).

The only criticism I've seen that's seemed somewhat interesting is when one looks at the mini-generation between Sampras and Federer. These are the guys born from 1975 to 1978. It includes guys like Kuerten, Moya, Haas, and Phillippoussis. Through a combination of injuries, apathy, etc., these guys, en masse, never achieved what they seemed capable of achieving. That mini-generation faded away right when they should have been in their prime. Perhaps the landscape from 2002 to 2006 or so might have looked a lot different with a healthy Kuerten or a healthy and motivated Phillippoussis. Then again, it might have looked exactly the same.

I am not diminishing Federer achievements, but more highlight Nadal's achievements. I considered him the best player or will be in 2008.
viewtopic.php?f=269&t=839488 (well here I said it in early 2009, that Borg was just ahead of him and he will surpass him)
You kind of highlight the main points in your message anyways, the players that was suppose to challenge Federer, never did in the end.
The reason why I say it is a weak era (pre-2007), is because I genuinely believe it was. You and Doctor MJ watch tennis quite abit, outside of Roddick, who else was there that you can say was challenging for trophies? Tim Henman (jk). i always believed the player that it should have been was Safin. Unfortunately, due to circumstance it never materialised.

[oberyn3]

You kind of highlight the main points in your message anyways, the players that was suppose to challenge Federer, never did in the end.

I was trying to convey that it's an unanswerable question. We say they "didn't challenge" Federer because they couldn't beat him. Is it because they were "weaker" than those who challenged past greats or is that Federer's a stronger and more consistent player than those past greats were. Unless someone invents a time machine we'll never get an answer to that question.

I also take the "weak era" notion with a grain of salt because, well, to be blunt, during the 90s everyone said the 90s were a weak era when compared to the 70s and 80s. This is what gets said whenever there's a dominant player.

All of a sudden, nostalgia has transformed the 90s into some sort of golden age in which Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Becker, et al. were all consistently at the peak of their powers. That's honestly not the way I remember that era. There were scores of articles asking the rhetorical question "What's wrong with tennis?" Courier burned out early. Agassi was inconsistent. Edberg was done as a serious contender after 1993. Becker was only slightly more consistent than Agassi. Bruguera and Muster were, basically, one-surface wonders. Stich was talented but not the most motivated guy in the world. Chang was consistent but frequently overpowered. Kracijek was talent but often injured. Ivanisevic was a headcase. Rafter put his body through hell to achieve the results he did and that's why his peak/prime was so brief.

Trust me, I'm far from the world's biggest Federer fan, but during his peak years (2004-2007), he managed to avoid the early/earlier round upsets that guys like Sampras didn't. Pete in his peak years (Wimbledon 1993 to Wimbledon 1997) lost one major final, to Agassi at the 1995 Australian Open. When ol' Pete got to the later rounds at a major, you knew he was going to bring home the trophy. Even excluding the French Open (where, let's face it, Sampras has some pretty bad losses on his resume), Sampras lost in earlier rounds to guys like Jaime Yzaga (U.S. Open 1994), Philippoussis (Australian Open 1996), and Korda (U.S. Open 1997). Federer didn't lose to their current era equivalents.

When Federer's faced guys like that, to his credit, he's beaten them. That's why he had that semifinal streak. He's beaten the lower-ranked guys he's supposed to have beaten. Again, is this because the lower-ranked guys in this era are weaker than the players in previous eras or is it simply a testament to Federer's consistency? There's no way we can ever know the answer to that question.