Guys,

I am not Fed bashing. Merely stating the facts.
Read this article:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/47a1ff20-5556-11db...00779e2340.html

Love this paragraph:

Federer, by contrast, has faced one of the weakest top 10s of the Open era. Lleyton Hewitt and Andy Roddick are players with serious limitations. Rafael Nadal has twice thwarted Federer at the French and gave him a scare this year at Wimbledon but the Spaniard has done nothing at the US Open or the Australian and is sufficiently injury-prone as to raise doubts about how much of a long-term danger he may pose.

The player who has always loomed as the biggest potential threat is Marat Safin, but knee problems and lack of inspiration have just about turned the 26-year-old into an also-ran.

If Federer does match or overtake Sampras in the next two or three seasons, it will not be surprising if some conclude that it all came a little too quickly and easily.


Chet

Excellent post, thanks for bringing this article to the attention of the board chet. It certainly raises some very significant points concerning Federer's opposition. What staggers me most is that not only were Sampras's opponents superior talent-wise, they also had vastly greater mental strength and will to win. I genuinely cannot comprehend the arguments of those who say this era is equal to, or even stronger, than Pete's.

In many ways it's a shame that it looks like Federer's not going to have much decent competition throughout his reign. I for one would have loved to see peak Federer battle it out with peak legends of the previous era, and while there's no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he'd have come off second best in nearly all the first half dozen or so matches against these players, it would have been very interesting to see how he fared when he 'figured' their game out like he has done in the current era. Of course it'd be totally different to what happened with Hewitt, but something that intrigues me nonetheless.

Well, it is an interesting article, but without dwelling on the fact that you had to go to the "Financial Times" in order to find an article that supported your view of the state of mens tennis, I'll make a couple comments on the article.

The author is trying to compare the relative achievements of Woods and Federer in their respective sports, and while he writes the paragraph you quote above, but he also writes:

So, on the one hand, since Federer's opponents have had little left to claim victory over and have been beset with performance issues, that proves they are unworthy competition. But on the other hand, since Woods' opponents have had little left to claim victory over and have been beset with performance issues, that proves how thoroughly Woods has intimidated even the most gifted challengers.

That smacks of more bias than a Dr. Sincere post. :rolleyes: In this case, though, it's probably more from the perspective of someone who has a bias toward golf over tennis. He even says that in golf, your main opponent is the course, yet he attributes the lack of success of other players during Woods' "era" to Woods' intimidation factor. Shouldn't it be the courses that defeated them, if he believes his own words?

Nick I was going to highlight exactly the same flaw in the article. As a professional journalist, I can safely say that the writer has tried to fit the facts to a pre-ordained theory, which is sloppy journalism at best, and makes his personal bias clear as his argument is not logically consistent.

On a wider issue, you can’t really compare golf and tennis anyway. In golf your main challenge is the course – what you fellow competitors are doing is largely irrelevant except in the impact they may have on your mental approach.

In tennis, every single shot (with the exception of the serve) depends to a certain extent on what your opponent has done on his or her previous shot, ie your ability to execute your shots and your gameplan are directly impacted by what your opponent is doing.

Furthermore, as has been pointed out in other threads, a golfer can have 3 good rounds and 1 poor round and still win the tournament; a tennis player having one poor match will find himself out of the tournament…

Lastly, there is no comparison in the physical side of the two sports – though many top golfers (particularly Woods) are very fit, plenty aren’t. You don’t see many unfit tennis players – well, Nalbandian, but what has he won of note? :whistle: There are plenty of examples of golfers winning Majors in their 40s, but when did you last hear of a tennis player in his 40s winning a singles GS event?

Agree with some of the points criticising the article, and it does appear that the writer is a bigger golf fan than he is tennis and therefore might have an agenda. Notice how he blasted the Federer era as weak, and gave opinions to support it, but just cited the Woods era as strong without any analysis. There are also arguments that Woods isn't exactly playing in an era of giants (but less so than with Federer). Let's take a look at two other interesting quotes:

Again you've got to question the integrity of the journalist. I wouldn't say Woods has changed golf any more than Federer's changed tennis. No-one before him used as much spin as the Swiss does, and to his credit he invented a shot (the volley cum forehand winner as demonstrated against Roddick in their Wimbledon semi-final. I'm not saying any of these things were a change for the better, but a change is a change.

I'd certainly concur with this. Woods's mental toughness is extraordinary, it rivals Pete Sampras's. On the few chances Federer's had to show his, he's nearly always choked. In fact, I think a comparison of Woods and Sampras would be much more relevant.

Oerall, the author makes some very good points and I'd certainly agree with his conclusions. Unfortunately however, he seems over eager to prove his point and has included some highly debateable criteria in his arguments which leaves him open to accusations of being biased. A shame, because his analytical skills are generally top notch.

Somehow Colin Montgomerie came to mind.

43 years of age and still winning tournaments.... the closest tennis has to that is Navratilova and Agassi and they finally retired as they weren't really winning tournaments anymore

p.s. is Chet and wise_anal the same guy?

‘is Chet and wise_anal the same guy?’

I’ve no idea, but wise is at least prepared to back up his beliefs with some sensible opinions and reasoned arguments, as per his post above where he concedes that the author of this article has used different criteria for assessing the two sports.

Woods’ mental strength and sheer persona are incredibly powerful – witness how frequently whoever he has played with in the final round of a Major has collapsed while Woods himself has marched on.

But I don’t agree that golf is currently replete with strong competitors, Els has rarely challenged Woods, Mickelson is probably too nice to do so and the youngsters haven’t yet pushed through to the summit – oh, sounds rather like another sport we could mention… :D

One final point: anyone who doesn’t think that Federer plays shots no-one before him has played, really doesn’t follow tennis that closely. The idea that Woods has changed the nature of his sport and Federer hasn’t is just nonsense – if anything, I would say it was the other way around.

I think you may be right in that, Sportsrep. What Woods has changed is the popularity and appeal of the game, particularly among a younger generation. I don't think he's changed that much about the WAY it's played, though. His style of play is pretty much to hit it as far as possible off the tee and master his short game in order to get out of trouble when some of those tee shots inevitably go astray. It's not a unique approach, but he executes it better than anyone else.

So he is more comparable to Sampras then :lol:

Is that all why Federer has been the Laureus worl sportsman of the year for the last two years?

L
E
G
E
N
D

LEGEND!

I remember Chet posting this article on the Beeb message board so he's not very original(for a change!).I don't consider one article from the Financial Times to be proof of the unprovable weak era theory.More knowledgable posters than me have already dismissed this theory on numerous occasions.BTW,Silent movie,I don't think Wise_A and Chet are the same person as Wise has a good knowledge of tennis,but has an obssessional anti-Fed agenda. :yikes:

I agree with the 'pro journalist' :bow: :bow:

I agree golf can be classed as a sport but beleive that if people are going to compare it to tennis must realise that the physical element is non existent.

In my biased opinion Federer is much better because he has a much more gruelling physical task day in day out (i.e. a 5 set clay match), equal skill and imagination, even higher consistency than Tiger and would argue higher mental stability (not familiar with this trait of Woods tho).

But surely the mental aspect is more important in tennis. It has a totally different scoring system. Playing the big points well in each match can matter more than having good statistics over the whole tournament as in golf. In Dubai, Federer had better statistics then Nadal in almost every aspect- he still lost .
In Rome, he had two match points - mishit a couple of forehands- he lost.
Its interesting that Woods never plays so well in the Ryder cup . Surely in matchplay his superior mental strength over his opponents would be a big advantage... :)

Great Sportsrep entering in the arena :P ...A man great to see you here on the CC board..

I fully agree with your comment about the lacuna on the FT's article..BTW I will add something you posted that:

"In tennis, every single shot (with the exception of the serve) depends to a certain extent on what your opponent has done"

IMO even the serve depends on your opponent.

Do you want a proof: Ask for instance to AROD :yikes: and his struggle to serve properly when he is facing ROG or Lubo :yikes: who is never doing the same number of aces when "the maestro" is on the other side of the net?..I mean even the serve depends on your opponent because you know the guy either because you already played him once or because you read some good reports or reviewed some tapes of him...

No Golf and Tennis shares in my view a single point: Stay focus and the need of concentrate in what you have to do the rest is all different..So a golf journalist talking about Tennis era quite frankly is IMO quite ridiculous. :rolleyes:

Ciao

Yes I agree with the reasonable people here (they know who they are ;))

Just one note that often people fail to see when comparing those 2 sports is that though they are both elitist in a way compared to football, one is certainly more so than the other and therefore cannot simply be compared in terms of levels.

In my view golf is where tennis was when Borg arrived in the scene. So roughly 30 years behind tennis. How many young kids played intensive golf 30 years ago when Woods was himself 4 or 5? Not many. Neither were they 20 years ago. I however believe that Woods success has certainly motivated many parents in investing in that sport and we might see a sharp rise in competitiveness in the next 5 years though it will always be cheaper and easier for the children around us to pick up a racket and play tennis instead for the foreseeable future.

I am not surprised the FT would publish such an article as their readers are probably more likely to play golf than tennis and certainly more likely to admire someone they almost could feel closeto than Federer. Because let's face it, if a good amateur golfer were to challenge Woods, he could play with him and while Woods would get a -10, the amateur could get a plus 10 or less. Not close but not too bad either. Now take an amateurish tennis player, tighten his seatbelt and let him get a point out of federer....let alone a game.

There was a discussion about this 'weak era' aspect on a thread a few weeks ago.. it doesn't cover the tennis v golf aspect as such, but there is certainly some discussion about the general subject matter.

I'm not going to reiterate my thoughts as I spouted quite a few of them on this thread, as did several others! :)

Here it is, if you wish to check this out :)

http://z3.invisionfree.com/Centre_Court/in...?showtopic=1197

I don't want to go over old ground here on the weak era debate.Just some things to remember,when you start questioning the validity of Federer's competition and their mental strength,abilities and so forth.

In every contest there is always someone on the other side of the net who has a 50% chance of directing,and controlling the game in any tennis encounter.As soon as you strike the ball,you have to wait for it to be hit back before you can hit it again.Furthermore no two players ever strike the ball in an identical way.Yes the fundamentals remain the same,but tennis is expressed in many different ways.Also different courts,different countries,below sea level,above sea level,changing weather,day to day conditions at the same tournament.Playing one day in the morning,then playing the next in the evening.Having a days rest then having to play the very next day.

I'm sure there are other things I've missed out.My point being that all these differing obstacles have to be mastered from week to week.One man nearly won every major tournament that he played.He managed to do this as well as handing out some convincing victories.
It's easy to dismiss someones achievements in a few words in a post,but if those who believe Federer to be playing in a weak era,pick up your tennis racquet whatever age you are,and go and play competitively at any level,and try and be the best in your club,let alone the world,and then you may gain a real insight into what Federer does.

To expect the whole of the top10 to play like Federer on every surface is nothing short of fantasy.
As Christopher Lambert says in The Highlander,"There can be only ONE". :)

This is so true. the level within our local clubs has gone constantly up (something to do with easier playing rackets) but the result means it is is tougher to win your local club now than then. It is funny how even by looking at the record board in my club to see members winning the annual tournament 6, 7 times in a row while now winning it 3 times consecutively is rare and getting rarer.

What we see at our club's level is actually emphasised when projected on a global scale.

Yes every now and then we will have a champion just able to get a thin edge over the rest for a relatively long period and this thin advantage could translate in a great record as is the case for Fed. But the other ones are not far behind. Bit of form, bit of confidence, simple fatigue from Fed and losing is around the corner.

Hi all, just picking up where I left off yesterday, it occurs to me that I might have come across as critical of Tiger Woods. That certainly wasn’t my attention, he’s a phenomenal golfer and a great role model – if he encourages more youngsters to take up the sport, particularly youngsters from outside the traditional golfing demographic, that can only be a good thing.

What Woods has brought to the game is a much more professional approach to training and preparation, including being physically fit, along with supreme mental strength which enables him to focus and stay in the zone no matter what is going on around him.

I do agree with Mr Havoc, though, that Woods hasn’t changed the WAY golf is played, just how well it is played.

For an interesting and unusual perspective on the era strength debate, read this post in the rec.sport.tennis newsgroup, originally posted some 8 months ago.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/rec.sport...47659e74466421b

RT, thanks for this link I found that discussion very interesting and thought-provoking :ok: