How To Challenge The Big 3

[tented]

^ No it's not backed up by results - because when you go back to 2002/2003 you had an emerging bunch of guys who all won slams, all hit #1 and the competition was solid. This was Federer's peer group. Everyone was excited and the future looked rosy.

Like I said in the original post, all these guys won majors in either their late teens or early twenties. The fact that Federer emerged from that group as uber-dominant player and ended up turning around all the head to heads and dominating the sport is a reflection of what a great player he was - not that his peer group was particularly weak. Hell, even a year or so ago I think the slam draws were heavily featuring players 30+ in years.

Wawrinka is not one of the young guns by any stretch of the imagination - he's a seasoned veteran.

So Hewitt was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it.... Nalbandian was a challenge UNTIL Federer overcame it. Like it or not, they were challenges and the challenge helped Roger develop into the dominant player he became. It might suit your argument to ignore it, but that's how it played out.

Nalbandian wasn't a challenge. He reached one slam final in his whole career - and again, this was before Roger hit 21. So when and where was Nalbandian a challenge? Up until the moment Roger challenged him?

Hewitt was like Jim Courier, a caretaker, who once Sampras hit his stride, vanished. If you think that Hewitt winning five sets over the course of 15 matches post-2003 constitutes a threat to Federer, then I don't know what you might decide to call a one-sided rivalry: maybe the one with Roddick?

The fact that these blokes did something before Federer came of age is irrelevant. They didn't disturb him after this. Now, you may argue that this is because he glows in the dark, can levitate while eating three shredded wheats, but it still doesn't suggest to anybody watching that they constituted a threat to his serene world.

They didn't. They were ineffective.

The modern bunch of lads maybe no better, but at the same time, they're no more ineffective...

You guys are talking past each other a bit. There's more agreement going on than it may at first appear.

Britbox is correct that Hewitt and Nalbandian challenged Roger until he overcame them. (And they're definitely all of the same generation given their ages.) Nalbandian beat Roger the first five times they played; in seven of their first nine encounters, Hewitt won. Clearly, they dominated Fed, until he turned things around, post 2003.

But Kieran, who isn't focusing on just the early years, is correct that once Roger became the one-man slam machine, Hewitt and Nalbandian were no longer a challenge to Fed's supremacy.

 

[Kieran]

Hey brother, are you okay? You see, you don't come off as someone who studied in law school. I know plenty lawyers, and in debate they don't become hysterical, irrational, and resort to personal attacks. They tend to be witty (though not sarcastic, since that's a low form of wit ) and when their logic fails, they simply change the argument.

In fairness, the last part you kinda did, because now you've graciously removed Nalbandian from your roll of honour. Smart move. he was part of a "serious generation" and now he's gone. This shows that you're beginning to pay attention.

Next, you'll actually read your own posts, and mine, and we might start to get somewhere.

In Kieran land, accomplishment = disturbing Federer.

We'll leave aside the flat attempt at wit, and ask, by what measure are you actually suggesting that Safin, Roddick, Hewitt, Gonzo et al actually challenged Federer? HOw are you measuring this? By collectively winning one match and about a dozen sets, out of about fifty matches and 150 sets? Does this collective breakdown add up to a more competitive sport than we have now, where players knock off greats and win slams?

Ah yes. After a whole year of diminishing Wawrinka's slam win

Did I really now? You're actually going there about Stan winning because of Rafa's back? That's a first! :laydownlaughing Let's forget about Stan being the only bloke who challenged Nole in the last three years in Oz, or Nishi, beating Nole in Flushing Meadows. These aren't worthy of note? Or is the fact that they didn't lay down and be dazzled by the better player a demerit, in your book?

Cilic didn't only destroy Federer in the semi, he won the tournament. That actually means something.

Let me cut to the chase:

Is Roddick a better, more accomplished player than Raonic? Is Hewitt a better player, more accomplished player than Nishikori? Is Safin a better, more accomplished player than Cilic? Is Nalbandian (there, I brought him up) a better, more accomplished player than Dimitrov?

You see, this is literally stupid, on at least two counts. Firstly, why not phrase it that Hewitt gets compared with Dimi, and Roddick with Nishi, and so forth? Why the random, pointless pairings? And secondly, who compared these players in the first place? The thread is about "how to challenge the Big 3", which consists of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer. We easily can slide Murray into the slot in place of any of the modern players you chose, and his record holds. But this isn't even the point. Using Safin and "his accomplishments" only causes us to condemn the man more, not praise him. You understand why, right? Because if - for example - a Nishi has the gall to stand up to Nole and beat him on hards, but Safin squanders his immense talents, then Nishi is the one we should praise, right?

You understand this, I'm sure. It's simple and obvious enough.

And Hewitt - he owned Federer, but you expect us to accept that Federer improved so much that Hewitt was only good for 5 sets across the next 15 matches?

But he's still challenging, right? I mean, this is real school of hard knocks stuff. :laydownlaughing :lolz:

The fact is, and it's quite easy to see, today's field may be no better - or maybe much better - than the bunch of grinning boys who faced Federer, but they're having as little success. You can't claim one group is "a serious generation" - which means, they won loads of things, :cover - and the other is "pretty mediocre", even though we're getting upsets, and the field winning majors again...

 

[tented]

Hey brother, are you okay? You see, you don't come off as someone who studied in law school. I know plenty lawyers, and in debate they don't become hysterical, irrational, and resort to personal attacks. They tend to be witty (though not sarcastic, since that's a low form of wit ) and when their logic fails, they simply change the argument.

In fairness, the last part you kinda did, because now you've graciously removed Nalbandian from your roll of honour. Smart move. he was part of a "serious generation" and now he's gone. This shows that you're beginning to pay attention.

You can't criticize Broken by writing "... you're beginning to sound a little lost - a little desperate - when you resort to personal attacks, buddy," then reply to him "... you don't come off as someone who studied in law school." That's a personal attack.

 

[Kieran]

Hey brother, are you okay? You see, you don't come off as someone who studied in law school. I know plenty lawyers, and in debate they don't become hysterical, irrational, and resort to personal attacks. They tend to be witty (though not sarcastic, since that's a low form of wit ) and when their logic fails, they simply change the argument.

In fairness, the last part you kinda did, because now you've graciously removed Nalbandian from your roll of honour. Smart move. he was part of a "serious generation" and now he's gone. This shows that you're beginning to pay attention.

You can't criticize Broken by writing "... you're beginning to sound a little lost - a little desperate - when you resort to personal attacks, buddy," then reply to him "... you don't come off as someone who studied in law school." That's a personal attack.

In fairness, myself and Broken have these wild spats occasionally, then we hug and team up again, but I said that original comment in reply to his remark (which was intended as an insult) comparing me to Cali.

Now, I like Cali and it's not an insult, but it was intended as such. And it surprised me, given how much praise Daveed was getting in this thread...

 

[tented]

Hey brother, are you okay? You see, you don't come off as someone who studied in law school. I know plenty lawyers, and in debate they don't become hysterical, irrational, and resort to personal attacks. They tend to be witty (though not sarcastic, since that's a low form of wit ) and when their logic fails, they simply change the argument.

In fairness, the last part you kinda did, because now you've graciously removed Nalbandian from your roll of honour. Smart move. he was part of a "serious generation" and now he's gone. This shows that you're beginning to pay attention.

You can't criticize Broken by writing "... you're beginning to sound a little lost - a little desperate - when you resort to personal attacks, buddy," then reply to him "... you don't come off as someone who studied in law school." That's a personal attack.

In fairness, myself and Broken have these wild spats occasionally, then we hug and team up again, but I said that original comment in reply to his remark (which was intended as an insult) comparing me to Cali.

Two wrongs don't make a right, buddy. You've both insulted each other, but I know you're both capable of discussing this without either one of you making it personal.

 

[Kieran]

I know you're both capable of discussing this without either one of you making it personal.

You know this based on what? :snicker

We're not making it personal, buddy, we're just tickling each other under the chin. There's no offense taken my end, and I know ole Broken's not gonna lose sleep over it too...

 

[Kieran]

You guys are talking past each other a bit. There's more agreement going on than it may at first appear.

Britbox is correct that Hewitt and Nalbandian challenged Roger until he overcame them. (And they're definitely all of the same generation given their ages.) Nalbandian beat Roger the first five times they played; in seven of their first nine encounters, Hewitt won. Clearly, they dominated Fed, until he turned things around, post 2003.

But Kieran, who isn't focusing on just the early years, is correct that once Roger became the one-man slam machine, Hewitt and Nalbandian were no longer a challenge to Fed's supremacy.

That's a very astute post, brother, because there's a huge different between the youthful bloodlusting shark that Hewitt was - and 80 weeks at #1 says something - during the transition from old Pete Sampras days to young Roger, and the man he became, which was certainly declined, for various reasons. The younger Hewitt was brilliant. But his fall began before Federer won his first Wimbledon. I trace the beginnings of it to his removal of Cahill from his team, which was unfathomable to me...

 

[brokenshoelace]

You see, this is literally stupid, on at least two counts. Firstly, why not phrase it that Hewitt gets compared with Dimi, and Roddick with Nishi, and so forth? Why the random, pointless pairings? And secondly, who compared these players in the first place? The thread is about "how to challenge the Big 3", which consists of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer.

Uh...if you change the grouping, the answer is still the same. Hewitt is better than Dimi, Roddick is better than Nishi, or any other combination. This isn't arbitrary, it's based on results. So yeah, "literally stupid"...if you say so.

Also who compared these players? You compared these players when you said Roger's generation is no better or "just as bad" as this generation...which is quite puzzling since their results are better (I'm baffled you continue to ignore this).

Keep in mind, I never said Nalbandian end co challenged Federer. I said their results are better than today's new generation. Which is a fact. By definition, this makes them better.

Also, for the 10th time, Wawrinka is not a part of today's generation. He's actually closer to Federer's generation in age!

 

[brokenshoelace]

I'd also like to point out that I didn't earn 3 degrees to prove my legal credentials on a tennis forum. So if I'm not coming off as someone who went to law school...well that's because this isn't a law forum.

Kieran and I will be fine, though. Don't worry about it.

 

[Kieran]

:laydownlaughing

They're not! They won nothing, brother. Get over it, their results were dreadful. And bear in mind, you called that generation "a serious generation" but the current one is "mediocre", which is ridiculously skewed and slanted with hyperbole, since even if we had evidence of anybody except Nadal challenging Federer after a certain point, their "results" weren't so magnificent to place them so much higher in the pantheon than today's players.

They're either similarly "mediocre" or "serious", brother, the results are in. We're not taking about beauty contests here... :hug

 

[Kieran]

Kieran and I will be fine, though. Don't worry about it.

Now this, I can hang with. We're just both sharpening our claws for the #haters, when Rafa returns to form...

 

[Denis]

You see, this is literally stupid, on at least two counts. Firstly, why not phrase it that Hewitt gets compared with Dimi, and Roddick with Nishi, and so forth? Why the random, pointless pairings? And secondly, who compared these players in the first place? The thread is about "how to challenge the Big 3", which consists of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer.

Uh...if you change the grouping, the answer is still the same. Hewitt is better than Dimi, Roddick is better than Nishi, or any other combination. This isn't arbitrary, it's based on results. So yeah, "literally stupid"...if you say so.

Also who compared these players? You compared these players when you said Roger's generation is no better or "just as bad" as this generation...which is quite puzzling since their results are better (I'm baffled you continue to ignore this).

Keep in mind, I never said Nalbandian end co challenged Federer. I said their results are better than today's new generation. Which is a fact. By definition, this makes them better.

Also, for the 10th time, Wawrinka is not a part of today's generation. He's actually closer to Federer's generation in age!

You can't really compare their results. Roddick etc had full careers. Nishi etc are not even halfway (hopefully).

 

[brokenshoelace]

:laydownlaughing

They're not! They won nothing, brother. Get over it, their results were dreadful. And bear in mind, you called that generation "a serious generation" but the current one is "mediocre", which is ridiculously skewed and slanted with hyperbole, since even if we had evidence of anybody except Nadal challenging Federer after a certain point, their "results" weren't so magnificent to place them so much higher in the pantheon than today's players.

They're either similarly "mediocre" or "serious", brother, the results are in. We're not taking about beauty contests here... :hug

What do you mean they won nothing? I don't understand this at all. Hewitt and Safin are multiple time slam winners. Yes, Hewitt's slams came before Roger peaked...Does that somehow reduce him to Raonic or Nishikori or Cilic? Seriously...is he not a better player than those guys and more accomplished?

I sincerely do not understand this "they won nothing thing." I guess Murray's won nothing either.

And yes, that was a serious generation, hampered by Federer. Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot.

Now the question is, do you think Nadal, Djokovic and Murray are the reason Cilic, Nishikori, Dimitrov and Raonic are not multiple slam winners?

It's one thing if you say those guys didn't pose Federer a challenge. That's debatable. Saying "they won nothing" is just factually incorrect.

Also, we differ on why they won nothing. You think they're spineless, weren't good enough, didn't make the most of their talent or a combination. I think Roger Federer in his heyday was just that damn good, and I also think that WAS a serious generation who was extremely talented and at its helm was one abnormally talented demigod.

Also, I don't follow the logic of championing Wawrinka for stepping up to Novak at the AO (where he's only beaten him once, or are you giving him a moral victory for 5 setters?) but Safin beating Pete Sampras and Roger Federer on his way to his two slam wins is somehow something to sneeze at. Now if it's because he was super talented and didn't make the most of it, I agree, but then you'd basically be admitting he's better than today's crop and you hold him to higher standards.

 

[brokenshoelace]

You see, this is literally stupid, on at least two counts. Firstly, why not phrase it that Hewitt gets compared with Dimi, and Roddick with Nishi, and so forth? Why the random, pointless pairings? And secondly, who compared these players in the first place? The thread is about "how to challenge the Big 3", which consists of Nadal, Djokovic and Federer.

Uh...if you change the grouping, the answer is still the same. Hewitt is better than Dimi, Roddick is better than Nishi, or any other combination. This isn't arbitrary, it's based on results. So yeah, "literally stupid"...if you say so.

Also who compared these players? You compared these players when you said Roger's generation is no better or "just as bad" as this generation...which is quite puzzling since their results are better (I'm baffled you continue to ignore this).

Keep in mind, I never said Nalbandian end co challenged Federer. I said their results are better than today's new generation. Which is a fact. By definition, this makes them better.

Also, for the 10th time, Wawrinka is not a part of today's generation. He's actually closer to Federer's generation in age!

You can't really compare their results. Roddick etc had full careers. Nishi etc are not even halfway (hopefully).

Nishikori turns 26 this year. Unless he has a slam win in him as well as a few other slam final appearances, then it's safe to say he's not on their level. But fine, as of now, those guys were better. Fair?

 

[Denis]

Uh...if you change the grouping, the answer is still the same. Hewitt is better than Dimi, Roddick is better than Nishi, or any other combination. This isn't arbitrary, it's based on results. So yeah, "literally stupid"...if you say so.

Also who compared these players? You compared these players when you said Roger's generation is no better or "just as bad" as this generation...which is quite puzzling since their results are better (I'm baffled you continue to ignore this).

Keep in mind, I never said Nalbandian end co challenged Federer. I said their results are better than today's new generation. Which is a fact. By definition, this makes them better.

Also, for the 10th time, Wawrinka is not a part of today's generation. He's actually closer to Federer's generation in age!

You can't really compare their results. Roddick etc had full careers. Nishi etc are not even halfway (hopefully).

Nishikori turns 26 this year. Unless he has a slam win in him as well as a few other slam final appearances, then it's safe to say he's not on their level. But fine, as of now, those guys were better. Fair?

OK I might be repeating what other people have said before, but Hewitt and Roddick didnt face any opposition when they got their slams. Hewitt has been schooled by virtually anyone decent for the past 10 years. He got lucky with the opposition in 2002-2003.

 

[Kieran]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

 

[Riotbeard]

Uh...if you change the grouping, the answer is still the same. Hewitt is better than Dimi, Roddick is better than Nishi, or any other combination. This isn't arbitrary, it's based on results. So yeah, "literally stupid"...if you say so.

Also who compared these players? You compared these players when you said Roger's generation is no better or "just as bad" as this generation...which is quite puzzling since their results are better (I'm baffled you continue to ignore this).

Keep in mind, I never said Nalbandian end co challenged Federer. I said their results are better than today's new generation. Which is a fact. By definition, this makes them better.

Also, for the 10th time, Wawrinka is not a part of today's generation. He's actually closer to Federer's generation in age!

You can't really compare their results. Roddick etc had full careers. Nishi etc are not even halfway (hopefully).

Nishikori turns 26 this year. Unless he has a slam win in him as well as a few other slam final appearances, then it's safe to say he's not on their level. But fine, as of now, those guys were better. Fair?

Kei is also 5 masters titles behind Roddick (Roddick even won a masters in the era of the big 4). Stan and Cillic are in the djokovic generation. In my opinion, there isn't even a nalbandian level player in the upcoming generation.

Also, while you don't credit for getting so close, but the wimbledon 2009 final...

 

[brokenshoelace]

You can't really compare their results. Roddick etc had full careers. Nishi etc are not even halfway (hopefully).

Nishikori turns 26 this year. Unless he has a slam win in him as well as a few other slam final appearances, then it's safe to say he's not on their level. But fine, as of now, those guys were better. Fair?

OK I might be repeating what other people have said before, but Hewitt and Roddick didnt face any opposition when they got their slams. Hewitt has been schooled by virtually anyone decent for the past 10 years. He got lucky with the opposition in 2002-2003.

Hewitt was world number 1 for about a year. Beat Pete Sampras at the US Open final. You think Nishikori had that in him?

Your argument would hold weight if Nishikori and co are only losing to the big 3 or whatever. They're not good enough to lace Hewitt's shoes. Get real.

 

[brokenshoelace]

Firstly, we've already drawn a line of demarcation in the sand: it was drawn before this, and it's referring to Federer's era. Safin and Hewitt were different before Federer came of age, and after. This isn't wholly down to Federer, as you know. We've already addressed this above.

Secondly, what's all this with "moral victories" for Stan? You give moral victories to everybody when you say "Safin would have at least another slam had it not been for Fed, Roddick would have about 3 more, Hewitt would have a couple of others... Suddenly you're looking at guys with 3, 4 and 4 slams (rough estimate) and they'd win a lot." :cover

Thirdly, we agree about Safin, that "he was super talented and didn't make the most of it" but you don't seem to get why this condemns him. Aside from his 2005 victory over Roger, he won a single set in his last 7 matches with Roger. :cover

The 2005 match shows what he could have been, and the others show what a patsy he was.

You know, and I know, the game is more dangerous for top players now than it was. Not just Rafa and Roger, but also for Nole. And Murray is coming back up. We had a US Open final with two total outsiders. That in itself is far more unpredictable than ten years ago, and a sign of better health for the sport...

I feel like we've gone back and forth a dozen times yet you're still not answering one key question:

Are Roddick, Hewitt and Safin not more accomplished and better players than today's generation?

 

[Kieran]

Nishikori turns 26 this year. Unless he has a slam win in him as well as a few other slam final appearances, then it's safe to say he's not on their level. But fine, as of now, those guys were better. Fair?

OK I might be repeating what other people have said before, but Hewitt and Roddick didnt face any opposition when they got their slams. Hewitt has been schooled by virtually anyone decent for the past 10 years. He got lucky with the opposition in 2002-2003.

Hewitt was world number 1 for about a year. Beat Pete Sampras at the US Open final. You think Nishikori had that in him?

Your argument would hold weight if Nishikori and co are only losing to the big 3 or whatever. They're not good enough to lace Hewitt's shoes. Get real.

Murray is, though. He's not part of the "Big 3".

And Pete that day? I think Nishi would have taken him. It was kinda like Cilic v Fed last year. Suddenly the old guy looked really old. Tired too. Sampras aged a helluva lot faster than Roger has...