Caporegime
I didn't really follow the first half of his season last year but I believe the majority of his points to defend will come from the French onwards so that makes sense.
Australian open 2017
- Thread starter Marsman
- Start date
Man of Honour
Well done to Federer. Difficult as it is to compare different eras but surely he's putting it beyond doubt that he is the greatest ever.
Novak Djokovic has quite a lot of points to defend from the first half of the season so there's equally an argument for Murray trying to capitalise on that and extend his lead in the standings. However as you suggest he might be better trying to focus on the slams since it's likely he'll keep the #1 ranking for the next while with or without playing much.
Novak Djokovic has quite a lot of points to defend from the first half of the season so there's equally an argument for Murray trying to capitalise on that and extend his lead in the standings. However as you suggest he might be better trying to focus on the slams since it's likely he'll keep the #1 ranking for the next while with or without playing much.
I was thinking about this last night. Forget the pre-Federer era (because I had no interest in tennis prior to that) and look at it from Federer's emergence to now. Is it fair to compare titles won by Federer with those won by Nadal or Djokovic?
Nadal and Djokovic have played their entire careers against some of the very greatest in the history of the game - whether that be each other, Federer or ocassionally Murray. Federer on the other hand won 12 Slams by the end of 2007 where, excluding the French Open, he had nobody to challenge him. Obviously he can only beat who's in front of him but had he been a few years younger or one or both of Nadal and Djokovic been a few years older, would he be sitting here with 18 Slams now?
yes
Probably because he's 5 years younger, and Federer's time out of the sport.
I didn't think there was a favourite, because Nadal is past his peak; the time when Federer found it a real struggle to beat him. Nadal's style of play has taken it's toll on his body, much more than Federer's has for him.
I'd be very surprised if Nadal were to get to a slam final at 35. Actually, i'll be surprised if his body lasts that long, from a tennis point of view.
Federer was easily better than anyone else when he won most of his slams. 2008 onward got a lot harder for him due to Nadal and then Djokovic.
Had he started 5 years later and was 30 now, then it's hard to say if he would still get to 18 slams; but, in my opinion, I don't think he would.
Man of Honour
Peak Federer vs peak Djokovic or peak Nadal? Really difficult to say, I suspect he wouldn't have 18 Slams if he'd started that bit later but you could take the view that the reason Djokovic/Nadal/Murray got to be so good is because they were being pushed so hard to catch up with one of the greatest players ever.
I do think you're being a bit dismissive of the players that Federer had to beat pre2008 - Roddick & Hewitt were no slouches on a tennis court, nor was Agassi albeit he was probably in decline by 2005. Mark Philippoussis and Marat Safin were both big servers from memory.
Federer's game is just superlatively good, he might have won a couple less if he'd had to play any of Djokovic/Nadal/Murray in every final because it's hard to always bring your A Game but at his best I think he'd have beaten any of them more often than not.
I'll be honest and say that my interest in tennis only peaked as a result of the Federer/Nadal rivalry so I'm not best placed to comment on Federer's early years. Maybe saying he had no competition was harsh but he certainly didn't face the same competition that Nadal and Djokovic have faced. Pre-2008, excluding the French Open, he didn't face anybody that could challenge him the same way that Nadal/Djokovic have been challenged in every tournament they've played.
The point about Nadal and Djokovic being pushed to these heights by Federer is a fair point but I think that's true in most sports. There are very few sports where the competitors today aren't better than those 20 years ago - it's a natural evolution.
Federer's an all time great and I can certainly understand why many people think he's the best ever but I just keep looking at what Nadal and Djokovic have achieved and am even more impressed. For those guys to have won what they have won and to have an outside chance of equalling or bettering Federer's achievements, given the level of competition they've faced, is incredible imo.
Soldato
A bit unfair on Serena, shes what 35 now? Years gone by the time you got to you late 20's early 30's your career was winding down like Graffs was in '99. She gets up every day, trains, eats and puts her body through a lot of work just so she can stay ahead of everyone else (the same goes for her sister who is even older). Serena and Rodger are testaments to modern day sports science and motivation.
Her physicality advantage is something she has earned with all years of hard work in the gym shes put in, its about time the over girls stepped up there game and realise they need to work harder if they want to beat her.
He would have a couple less but Murray wouldn't have won a damn thing if Nadal was ever fit/still in his prime or Fed was. The difference is when the competition was slack Fed put titles away, Murray blows them. Yes Federer has had a few favourable years but then so have Djorkovic and Murray. You can always look to the past but you can only beat who is in front of you and Fed got that job done.
