Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
That is very subjective. Was the competition perceived to be better with Sampras because Sampras was closer in skill level?
Is Federer that much better than the rest?
From 2004 through 2006, Federer had the best three-year match and tournament winning percentages since the inception of the ATP rankings in 1973. Federer won 94.3 percent of his singles matches (247-15) and 69.4 percent of the singles tournaments he entered (34 titles in 49 tournaments, including eight of twelve Grand Slam tournaments).
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
That is very subjective. Was the competition perceived to be better with Sampras because Sampras was closer in skill level?
Is Federer that much better than the rest?
the bad competition argument is sort of weak - bad competiion is not federer's problem. he can only defeat whats before him. .
Originally posted by: Sugeknight
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
That is very subjective. Was the competition perceived to be better with Sampras because Sampras was closer in skill level?
Is Federer that much better than the rest?
the bad competition argument is sort of weak - bad competiion is not federer's problem. he can only defeat whats before him. .
How is it a weak argument? Are you saying the caliber of competition isn't easier now?
The same goes for Tiger Woods...how many legends is does he compete against?
Originally posted by: Geocentricity
Legends of any sport become legends ages AFTER their best played years.
Who the hell can say for certain that Federer is or isn't playing against legends right now? Look at Nadal, Baghdatis, Coria, all awesome players that deserve credit. Same goes for Tiger Woods. What position do you people have in saying that the competition against him is trash? Lets see you play a pro-sport with either of them and then talk smack.
Federer all the way since he's got more than just a serve-volley and a helluva backhand
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Sugeknight
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
That is very subjective. Was the competition perceived to be better with Sampras because Sampras was closer in skill level?
Is Federer that much better than the rest?
the bad competition argument is sort of weak - bad competiion is not federer's problem. he can only defeat whats before him. .
How is it a weak argument? Are you saying the caliber of competition isn't easier now?
The same goes for Tiger Woods...how many legends is does he compete against?
what i meant was that - the weak competition argument cannot be used either for or against federer. it can only be a speculation as to what would have happened if he had better competition etc.
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Sugeknight
Originally posted by: tmc
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: Ricemarine
Federer is playing in competition not so skilled as the competition where Agassi and Sampras have played in.
That is very subjective. Was the competition perceived to be better with Sampras because Sampras was closer in skill level?
Is Federer that much better than the rest?
the bad competition argument is sort of weak - bad competiion is not federer's problem. he can only defeat whats before him. .
How is it a weak argument? Are you saying the caliber of competition isn't easier now?
The same goes for Tiger Woods...how many legends is does he compete against?
what i meant was that - the weak competition argument cannot be used either for or against federer. it can only be a speculation as to what would have happened if he had better competition etc.
I would argue the competition only has the perception of weakness because Federer is so dominant. I don't think the caliber of competition is easier. In fact I would argue it's harder. It's just the fact that Federer is so damn dominant it seems like the competition is wack.
However, I think it's pretty certain that Sampras and Federer are the 2 greatest players ever. It's sort of sad they didn't play in the same era.
Originally posted by: secretanchitman
while it it good for him that he's #1 and can basically win any match he plays, i hate to see him go on after all this time. its time for someone else to take over. all i hear is federer federer federer...
sampras ftw.
Originally posted by: tmc
answer poll. comments are welcome!!!
Originally posted by: sao123
Originally posted by: tmc
answer poll. comments are welcome!!!
shouldnt the real question be Anna Kournikova or Maria Sharapova ?