22
Federer speaks about his so-called “weak era”
37 Comments · Posted by Scoop Malinowski in Articles, Scoop
I found this 2006 interview with Federer where he is challenged by a journalist (maybe it was Dan M.) about his supposedly mastering a weak era. He smashes the question with a knockout blow…
INTERVIEWER – what do you think of the people who say your victories in the slams are down to weak competition?
ROGER FEDERER – Well to those people I say pick up a racquet and play against Nalbandian, Ljubicic, Safin or Moya. Domination isn’t down to poor competition, it’s about making the difficult look easy, that’s why people say the competition is not fierce enough.
INTERVIEWER – so you think the argument that Sampras had stronger competition is wrong?
ROGER FEDERER – I think there were so many people saying the same about Sampras when he was playing. That he’s beatable but the competition is weak.
——————–
I officially declare an end to this Federer dominated in a “weak era” silliness.
"Making the difficult look easy"
37 comments
<< Facing Federer book is getting positive reviews from tennis fans
Dan markowitz · October 22, 2013 at 9:49 am
There weren’t people saying Sampras dominated a weak era. I’m sorry, the guys Federer mentioned are not high-quality players.
Scoop Malinowski · October 22, 2013 at 10:33 am
Maybe Dan if Federer weren’t as great as he was, those guys like Moya Nalbandian Ljubicic would have won two or three majors themselves. But Fed hoarded them all for himself. Would you agree those players would have been “high quality” players if they had won two or three majors each?
Tom Michael · October 22, 2013 at 11:06 am
I believe during the Sampras era, there was talk about his era being weak because Agassi was the only other truly great player. Andre won 8 majors. Meanwhile, Lendl played in an era with Wilander (7), McEnroe (7), Becker (6), Edberg (6), and Connors (8), with the number in parentheses denoting the number of singles majors owned. For a short while he even competed against Borg who had 11. Lendl himself would never say he is better than Sampras or Agassi because he does not have 14 majors like Pete or a career grand slam like Andre.
Meanwhile Pete and his apologists are making the case for him by talking about how he would do against Nadal and Federer. He does not have Roland Garros, i.e. a career grand slam. Meanwhile Rafa and Roger have double digits and a career grand slam. Rafa has two or more of every grand slam surface. Roger has more total majors than Pete. Rafa should have more total majors than Pete when he is done.
Pete would never beat Roger or Rafa at Roland Garros. They would beat him everywhere else enough times to have a positive head to head against him.
Roger and Rafa played each other to make their era competitive. There are people comparing the era with Murray, Djokovic, Federer, Del Potro, and Nadal to the era that Lendl competed in. True than Lendl’s era was the most competitive. But Roger’s and Rafa’s era is closer in competitiveness to Lendl’s than Pete’s ever was. The ultimate reason Roger and Rafa make a competitive era that both men ended their careers with double digits, and a career grand slam; in other past eras, if a player had double digits, the other contemporary rival did not. Sampras (14) vs Agassi (8). Borg (11) vs Connors (8)/McEnroe(7). Tilden (10) vs the rest. Roger and Rafa can not help that they dominated their competition.
Scoop Malinowski · October 22, 2013 at 11:26 am
I also believe there was chatter about Pete ruling over a weak era Tom. Agassi was high and low, up and down. Rios, Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Philippousis, Courier, Chang, Muster, Henman, Goran, Rusedski, Korda, Moya, Bruguera, Pioline were inconsistent. I also remember a writer in Tennis Week made a great point that Pete did not have a great lefty to have to contend with, like Borg had McEnroe and Federer has Rafa. His point was that Pete had it much easier by not having that nightmarish lefty to haunt him. Rios Korda and Muster could have been a big headache for Pete but they just weren’t good enough. Or was it that Pete was just too great for them? I agree with you Tom, if Pete’s prime coincided with Roger and Rafa, he’d be on the outside looking in.
Dan markowitz · October 22, 2013 at 11:30 am
Scoop,
You saw these guys play. I don’t need to know how many slams they won to tell you that none of those guys were great players. That’s like asking me if Delpo’s a great player. He hits the ball great, but he’s not a great player. And Berdy and Delpo are better players than Moya, Nalby and Luby.
Tom Michael · October 22, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Delpo is a great player because he won a slam. He is not an all-time great. That is how I see it.
Berdych, Delpo, Moya, Nalby, and Luby all played each other and against Federer in the same era. So the latter three retired recently. That does not change the connection to Federer or the fact that they were beaten by him.
Scoop Malinowski · October 22, 2013 at 1:06 pm
See, that can’t be proven that Delpo and Berd are better than Moya, Nalbandian and Ljubicic. It’s far from a fact, just like it can’t be proven that Joe Louis was better than Vitali Klitschko or Derek Jeter was better than Pete Rose. Maybe all five of these players suffered from the same problem, deep down in the subconscious, after repeated defeats, they knew they really were not better than Federer and Sampras, respectively. There is absolutely no way you can prove or conclude that Delpo and Berd are superior players to Moya, Nalbandian and Ljubicic.
Scoop Malinowski · October 22, 2013 at 1:07 pm
Agree Tom, Delpo is a great player for winning a major. But I don’t think he is a great enough player to become number one, or even become number one for six weeks like Marcelo Rios 🙂
Dan markowitz · October 22, 2013 at 2:21 pm
Come on. I’m in Newport right now standing in front of the Hall of Fame and how could you even put Luby into this conversation? The guy never did well in a slam. And Nalby, did he ever reach more than a slam finals and semis?
Scoop Malinowski · October 22, 2013 at 5:07 pm
Ljubicic played his best tennis in Davis Cup and Masters Series. Dan can you take some photos, I’d like to see Newport Hall of Fame courts at this time of year.
Gaurang · October 22, 2013 at 6:06 pm
Well, Nadal’s prime cannot technically be considered part of Federer’s era. I just now carefully looked at their grand slam eras.
Earlier Nadal used to dominate only clay, and used to perform well on grass but Grass is a very short season. Until Nadal proved that he could play well on hard courts, he was still a “specialized” player.
First hard court slam he won was Aus Open 2009. Thats when we could say — this guy is the real deal — he can play on all surfaces, and has become a real contender for any slam, regardless of surface.
Until AusOpen 2009, Federer had already won 13 slams.
Federer won 4 more slams after Nadal’s emergence as a all-surface player:
– French Open 2009: Nadal was beaten by Soderling in 4th Round due to knee injury, so Fed never needed to face Nadal there.
– Wimbledon 2009: Nadal was absent due to knee injury.
– Aus Open 2010: Nadal retired hurt in QF playing Murray, due to knee injury.
– Wimbledon 2012: Nadal lost to Rosol in 2R due to knee injury, which he himself admitted.
So its clear that when Nadal emerged — Roger did not win any slam unless when Nadal was injured.
I would have to say that Nadal does not belong to Roger’s era. Roger won 17 slams when Nadal had not emerged as an all-court player.
Gaurang · October 22, 2013 at 6:09 pm
Also — it may turn out to be controversial — but I can safely say that Roger couldnt have won French Open — the one time he won in 2009 was because Rafa lost to Soderling in 4th round due to knee injury. If Rafa wouldnt have been injured, I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER that Nadal would have won the slam instead of Roger, and Roger would never have completed the career grand slam.
Gaurang · October 22, 2013 at 6:22 pm
Though on the other side — Roger played 8 Grand Slam Finals against Nadal — and lost 6 (4 in FO, 1 in Wimbledon, and 1 in AO) — so you could say that Nadal did prevent him from winning some more slams.
The only caveat being, which I mentioned above, is that once Nadal emerged as an all-court player Roger did not any more slams unless Nadal was injured. This means, that Roger has not really proven that he is a better player than Nadal. And thus, we would have to consider Roger’s era as having ended when Nadal’s era began in Aus Open 2009.
DanM · October 22, 2013 at 7:45 pm
I’m sorry, Scoop. I wasn’t in a photo taking mood although it was beautiful up there. They closed off all the courts except for the grass court in the front which as you know, is just a “show” court where they usually have players dressed in old-fashioned tennis clothes playing with wood racquets.
In the entryway off Memorial Blvd., they had a photo for the 2014 event and they had a picture of Hewitt serving and an inset photo of Nicolas Mahut. I completely forgot that he won the tournament last year. I’m hoping Fed makes an appearance in Newport before he retires.
Doogie · October 23, 2013 at 3:12 am
Which grand slam could Ljubicic won?? He was not even close to win one (best result I believe at French Open!!).
On grass he did not win much thru his career, he was no clay specialist and at AUS-Open it was way to hot for him. He was never in discussion to win one tbh.
In my oponion the weakest number 3 player in last 3 decades.
In grand slams: One quarter final and one semi in 13 years.
BTW he NEVER faced Fed in one grand slam. So way it is Fed fault that Ljubo never won one??
Gaurang · October 23, 2013 at 4:37 am
DanM, it appears you have posted again as Scoop. Really, I request you to fix this problem — it makes things confusing in a conversation, when somebody can post as somebody else.
Dan Markowitz · October 23, 2013 at 7:33 am
Sorry, Gaurang. I will try to remember to change the tag name. I post under Scoop’s name because on our dang web site, his is the only one I know how to post pics on.
But Doogie, you are again correct. Where did Luby make a slam semis. Oh, I see, the French, but that year he got to the semis and two toughest players he beat were Hildago #79 and Benneteau #95. So he basically got through a walk-through. Amazing, the guy went to the Rd of 16 only 4 times in slams! That’s horrible. Spadea holds a 3-2 career advantage over Luby and the only times he lost were on grass (were Vince stunk) and in Miami, where Luby won 7-6 in the third. Vince beat him in Monte Carlo after losing the first set 6-1. And how’s this, Spadea reached the Rd of 16 or further 4X just like Luby.
Luby is weak. He won Indy Wells, won the Davis Cup that year in LA, but Federer must’ve been joking when he mentioned Luby as a top player.
Scoop Malinowski · October 23, 2013 at 10:41 am
It is an outrage to call Ivan Ljubicic a “weak” player.
Dan Markowitz · October 23, 2013 at 11:00 am
Ok, I’m sorry. Luby is a weak player when you compare him to champion players. Better?
Mitch · October 23, 2013 at 12:16 pm
Ljubicic’s Indian Wells run was epic. He beat Djokovic, Nadal, and then Roddick, who was playing what might have been the best tennis of his career.
Dan Markowitz · October 23, 2013 at 1:53 pm
Mitch,
Spadea beat Blake, Safin, Stepanek, Srichapan, and Calleri when he was #21 in making the Miami semis. Granted, Luby’s win was much more impressive, but it was one event.
How can you call a guy a quality player when he reached the Rd of 16 or beyond only 4 times in his career. Obviously, the guy had no staying power.
Gaurang · October 23, 2013 at 8:50 pm
Any comments on the bold claim I made above???
I claimed that Federer would never have won the career grand slam if Nadal wouldnt have been injured in Roland Garros 2009. If Nadal wouldnt have been injured there, there’s no indication at all that Federer would have beaten Nadal in the final — Nadal has won every French Open that he has played in apart from that one — 4 before, and 4 since. Federer was not playing anything spectacular that year, that one could suppose he could beat Nadal there.
Does this put an asterisk on Federer?
Scoop Malinowski · October 23, 2013 at 8:54 pm
Gaurang; Not sure if Rafa was hurt, it looked like Soderling just bashed him off the court that day. Rafa looked typically solid and strong but Soderling played the match of his life. Agree that Fed could never beat Rafa at the French Open. He’s lost too many times to Rafa, he is too psyched out by Rafa to ever be able to summon a Soderling type performance.
Gaurang · October 23, 2013 at 9:03 pm
Scoop — if you remember Uncle Toni confirmed that Nadal was sufferring from tendinitis in both knees. Immediately after loosing to Soderling, Nadal withdrew from the next tournaments he was supposed to play in: AEGON tournament, Wimbledon and Davis Cup — one by one.
I am not sure whether Nadal specifically admitted to being injured in that particular match — (I think he did, perhaps indirectly, but I am not sure) — but it is obvious from his withdrawal from the next tournaments — he did not play a match after the Soderling match for 2-3 months.
Nadal did not play very badly in the Soderling match, but the pain in his knees coudl definitely have affected his play — and he may not have been able to raise his game to his best level.
Gaurang · October 23, 2013 at 9:06 pm
It also fits in the pattern that Nadal typically follows in his injuries. He does not typically withdraw BEFORE the injury affects his play. He usually continues playing until he can — and then he has a bad loss — and then he starts withdrawing from successive tournaments. For example, apart from Soderling loss, that was true for the loss against Rosol as well, and a few other times as well.
Gaurang · October 23, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Tom Michael, just found out that Mats Wilander also had multiple slams on each surface (grass, clay, and hard)
Scoop Malinowski · October 24, 2013 at 7:57 am
Ljubicic earned over ten million dollars playing tennis, won the Davis Cup going ll-l that year, second only to Johnny Mac’s record of l2-0, QF of Australian Open, beat world number one Kuerten, also wins over Nadal, Djokovic, Agassi, Federer. Won Indian Wells Masters Series, Kafelnikov never won a single Masters Series. #3 in the world. Ljubicic lasted fifteen years on the ATP Tour. I’d call that a great career and far from a weak player.
Tom Michael · October 24, 2013 at 10:08 am
And the sky is blue on a clear sunny day.
I did know that Wilander won slams on every surface twice each. Two AO when it was grass. One AO (1988) and USO (1988) on hard courts. And three Roland Garros. But Matts does not have the career grand slam or double digits, like Rafa and Roger. Roger does not have multiples of all surfaces, but Rafa and Matts do. There is no serious grand slam hole in Rafa’s resume. Unless someone says he only has one Australian Open. So sad! Rafa should have three of every surface if he wins Wimbledon.
Gaurang · October 24, 2013 at 12:19 pm
Scoop, in my opinion, there’s no point arguing that Ljubicic was a great grand slam player — just the same way there’s no point in arguing Federer is a faulty legend.
Ljubicic passed 4R only 2 times in his entire career in grand slams — 2006 AO (QF) and 2006 FO (SF). Even 4R he reached only 2 other times in his career 2008 FO and 2011 FO. Apart from these 4 slams, he lost in 3R or earlier — most of the times in 1R and 2R.
Really, he is I would say a typical 3R player in Grand Slam — like a top 32 player. You could say a top 20 player.
He was in year-end top 10 only 2 times in his career — 2005 (#9) and 2006 (#5).
Top 10 is good — so I would say he was a good player in 2005 and 2006. But still not a very good grand slam player — apart from 2006 AO + 2006 FO.
Gaurang · October 24, 2013 at 12:21 pm
Tom Michael, good you know. I am not saying Mats Wilander is a great player. In fact, that he is not a great player, is just the point I am making!
If Mats Wilander can do this — who would have a hard time getting into top 10 all-time great list — then this acheivement has low value I would say.
Tom Michael · October 24, 2013 at 1:25 pm
Matts Wilander was a great player. And underrated. He is not in the top 5 all-time great list because he has neither a career grand slam or double digits. The multiples of all slam surfaces gives him value to get to a top 10 list, especially since he was the first male player to achieve such a feat. And the second male player after Connors to win all surfaces once.
The top five are easy: Federer, Nadal, Laver, Sampras, Borg.
Agassi, Tilden, Perry, Emerson, Budge, Connors, Rosewall, and Wilander. Make up the next tier as far as I am concerned. Wilander can just squeeze into the top 10 list depending on the order one likes.
Wilander in most American eyes is lower on the list than McEnroe, who has only the Wimbledon and the US Open. This is ridiculous because McEnroe has no Australian or French, no clay slam, no 2 clay slams. Wilander may be missing Wimbledon but he has slams on all surfaces, which is nothing to be sneezed at. Because of jingoistic bias here, Wilander is basically ignored. Sad really!
If Wilander is not a great player, then Djokovic is not either. Novak has one less slam. And he does not have all surfaces.
Dan M not Scoop · October 24, 2013 at 4:15 pm
Wilander is basically ignored because he played a game that was about as boring as a top player can play.
And McEnroe is the only player in the Open Era who up seeded and beat a player who at the time was in his prime and winning everything.
Tom Michael · October 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm
Dan posting as Scoop again. McEnroe is not the only player in the Open Era who up seeded and beat a player who at the time was in his prime and winning everything. McEnroe won the US Open his home slam against Borg in 1980 at the age of 21, while Borg was 24. He beat Borg the next year age 22 at Wimbledon and US Open. McEnroe was entering his prime and Borg was nearing the end of it, even retiring early. Before he beat Borg at Wimbledon, McEnroe was an US Open specialist. Lendl mid prime at age 24 wins Roland Garros against McEnroe, age 25, and about to end the season with only 2 losses. Nadal at age 19, 20, 21, wins three French Opens against Roger Federer who was in his prime winning everything. McEnroe is not the only one.
Wilander won slams beating prime McEnroe along the way. Namely the 1983 Australian Open as a 19 year old and the 1985 French Open as a 21 year old. McEnroe did not do the same against Wilander.
I understand a player’s style being boring to a fan. But I assure you Wilander was not at all bored with himself when he was winning.
Scoop Malinowski · October 24, 2013 at 8:43 pm
How was Wilander any more boring than Borg? Wilander played great tennis.
gustarhymes · October 25, 2013 at 3:38 pm
BTW Scoop, I think Marcelo Rios would trade his 6 weeks at number one for any grand slam singles title.
I think Sampras would trade his WTF for Roland Garros.
Rafael Nadal doesn’t have any regrets and doesn’t want to trade anything! The WTF not that important and neither is weeks at number one if you don’t have a slam.
Gusta
Gaurang · October 25, 2013 at 3:52 pm
Gusta, actually I think Nadal might be willing to trade a couple of RG for 100 weeks at #1 and one WTF
gustarhymes · October 25, 2013 at 9:12 pm
Gaurang, the slams are what counts. Being number one or 2 is nice but at the end of the day the quantity and quality of slams are what matter. Jimmy Connors had more weeks at number one than Borg. Would Borg trade a major for that? No.
Roland Garros or any slam is worth much more than a WTF. No one remembers who even won WTF tournaments. WTF are only at the level of a tier one or Super nine event. Though it is more in points than a super nine, it is closer to a super nine than a slam. BTW Rafa will have his share of weeks at number one. He would never trade a Roland Garros for more weeks at number one or the WTF. The European players value a RG title more than the US OPen or Aussie open. In prestige Wimbledon is greater but Rafa has 2 of those too. Now, the 4 majors are more equal than ever. If anything, The US Open and Aussie Open being the same surface makes winning both less important.
I like Marcelo Rios but at the end of the day, his greatest claim to fame is being number one without winning a major. So it can theoretically happen if you win enough super nines and there are 4 different winners of majors over a 12 month calendar period.
Corretja and Nalbandian won the WTF tournament too. Its nice, but they are just non slam winners in the historical perspective. BTW Rod Laver and Mats Wilander didn’t win the WTF tournaments. I don’t think most people even know that or care. I guess Rod Laver, Wilander and Rafael Nadal are crying in their sleep over this. I’ll bet Sampras is regretting not winning RG much more! In the eyes of most tennis experts, this lack of RG hurts Sampras in the historical perspective much more. I rarely hear about the WTF as being a criteria by anyone of merit. I would group the WTF with the Super Nines. I will give Fed credit for having the most Super Nines and WTF combined; but Rafa has the most Super Nines and hence the WTF is just not a big deal.
Gusta