Reply With Quote
I think the main diff is Tiger has real compe ion. VJ and Phil are considered legit contenders every day. Tiger goes against and entire field daily.
Federer goes one-on-one. He has the ability to dominatein that situation. Rod and Hewitt can't be considered legit conteders to the #1.
Hewitt hasn't been out of the 1/4s of a Grand Slam since 2005, and has only won 2 Grand Slams; both of which were before Federer was a player of note ('02 Wimb over Nalbandian and '01 USOpen over Sampras) and only 4 GS Finals overall.
Rod 's problem is he is completely dominated by Federer. Andy has only been in 4 GS Finals (won '03 USOpen over Ferrero and lost '04/'05 Wimb and '06 USOpen all to Federer). He has only 2 other les since his '03 USOpen ('04 Miami over Coria and '06 Cincy over Ferrero).
I think the best legit challenger to Federer is Nadal. Nadal plays great against Federer, and has beaten him on and off a big stage ('06 French Open Finals, ATP Masters at both Monte Carlo and Rome). He is 4-2 in finals against Federer and 1-1 in GS finals (lost '06 Wimb).
Tiger has dominated since he became a pro in '96. He won 2 events that year, and his 2nd year as a pro, he became the #1 player and won his 1st Major - the Masters, in the most dominating fashion ever.
Federer became a pro in '98, and floundered his 1st few years. He had a 1st-round exit in a Grand Slam in each year from '98 to '03. He was a 1st-round out at the French, then won his 1st GS at Wimb same year.
Tiger has been dominant since '97.
Feder has been dominant since '04. Most impressive, to be sure. But not the same.
