Make Up Your Mind Simon Reed!

Hello all,
Have missed all the action on the boards the last 10 days due to PC problems and a dead hard drive amounting to 4 and a half years of photos and other stuff being totally lost. Anyway, just read these two articles by the 5* reporter Simon Reed whose opinion seems to be like the daily weather: very changeable!

After Paris he writes that no one should get excited about Fed's resurgence and that a lot of factors contributed to the win i.e injuries, long matches and absences. He also writes that Novak and Nadal have the better of Fed in the slams now but believes Fed has one more slam left in him at some point in his career.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8003/

Two weeks later after the WTF its a different story in the articles 'Federer and Murray will clean up in 2012' http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8181/. According to him the old Novak will return, Nadal is struggling and therefore Fed could possibly win a couple of slams next year and may even end up number one.

These two articles are to me in total contrast. The second article invalidates the first in my opinion. I can imagine if he sat on the fence but he seems to be jumping back and forth over that fence! Does he not read the comments under his works of literary genius?

With Bodo, he is probably the worst tennis journalist out there. At least Bodo knows a bit of tennis, this Simon is worse than Unbiased_Educator!

To make your mind up you have to have one to start with.

bogbrush wrote:To make your mind up you have to have one to start with.

well what did you expect? It's Simon Reed.

good one BB

Well to be honest Reed has a point. May be he was briefed on the plot involving citizens of Basel robbing a Grand slam trophy next year.
Winning end of year exhibition tournaments sadly only gets a player far.

Tenez wrote:With Bodo, he is probably the worst tennis journalist out there. At least Bodo knows a bit of tennis, this Simon is worse than Unbiased_Educator!

Indeed he is !

And what d'ye know ..... no sooner have you mentioned the legendary UE and he then pops up disguised as Simple Analyst .....

Have said this umpteen times over the past few years that I always preferred his brother...had conviction, looked like a good a laugh and if he said an opinion boy did you listen! (shame about the "sauce" in his later years but you cant deny the guy had charisma in buckets...funny how brothers can be so different!)

Still when I was glued to watching Tennis on Eurosport in the 90s (when they showed every ATP event live each week), I had to put up with him out of him, Frew McMillan and David Mercer. Always prayed I'd get Frew and David as their knowledge was so much deeper, Simon just used to talk about the altitude, weather, the players last performance (from a sheet) and what they were wearing. 15 years later he still hasnt picked up much tennis knowledge!

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well to be honest Reed has a point.

Unforced_Error feels the need to defend SR!

I know reed is funny, i go to eurosport just to read Reed's artcle. coz he publish Poopie article and change his view the very next day. They are good for laugh.

FedsFan wrote:
Have missed all the action on the boards the last 10 days due to PC problems and a dead hard drive amounting to 4 and a half years of photos and other stuff being totally lost. Anyway, just read these two articles by the 5* reporter Simon Reed whose opinion seems to be like the daily weather: very changeable!

Very sorry to hear about this. Wish you had backups.

FedsFan wrote:After Paris he writes that no one should get excited about Fed's resurgence and that a lot of factors contributed to the win i.e injuries, long matches and absences. He also writes that Novak and Nadal have the better of Fed in the slams now but believes Fed has one more slam left in him at some point in his career.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8003/

Two weeks later after the WTF its a different story in the articles 'Federer and Murray will clean up in 2012' http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8181/. According to him the old Novak will return, Nadal is struggling and therefore Fed could possibly win a couple of slams next year and may even end up number one.

These two articles are to me in total contrast. The second article invalidates the first in my opinion. I can imagine if he sat on the fence but he seems to be jumping back and forth over that fence! Does he not read the comments under his works of literary genius?

Very fickle and a very bad observer of the game despite the fact that he has the privilege and access.

Here is a collection of this literary genius's compendium. - http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/

How has he spent 40+ years and not learnt anything, even by osmosis?

Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

Simple_Analyst wrote:Well to be honest Reed has a point. May be he was briefed on the plot involving citizens of Basel robbing a Grand slam trophy next year.
Winning end of year exhibition tournaments sadly only gets a player far.

Yeah, just a pity it's at the top of his head.

Fedex_the_best wrote:Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

That's because Keynes was an idiot. Changing facts don't change your opinion if you were right in the first place, because you're original accuracy will be unaltered by these new developments. Keynes was basically admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The financial crash of 2008, increasing now and soon to become a storm that will change all our lives hasn't made me change any of my opinions; I had correspondence with government ministers in 2004 explaining to them that this was exactly what was going to happen. But then, nobody saw this coming, did they?

Fedex_the_best wrote:Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

Nothing has changed, especially for Nadal. He has been doing the same for the last 6 years: going into hibernation after the summer. Now Djoko has joined this cycle.

Fedex_the_best wrote:one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

Right from the outset I was pretty sure that Roger Federer would win the ATP World Tour Finals at the O2.

Statements like these do not endear him to a sizable Tennis-watching public, though.

Djokovic's withdrawal at Cincy happened in Aug-Sep. Nadal's loses started in IW in the Spring.

SR is perhaps a bit too late coming to the party.

bogbrush wrote:The financial crash of 2008, increasing now and soon to become a storm that will change all our lives hasn't made me change any of my opinions; I had correspondence with government ministers in 2004 explaining to them that this was exactly what was going to happen. But then, nobody saw this coming, did they?

Oh yes, a few of us did!

Scary times!

Simon Reed is just a total bafoon.

I think when you look at threads on here from Federer followers, some wrote him off in Slams after his defeat to Tsonga at Wimbledon. Despite success's in Basel, Paris and London their views haven't changed so dramatically as Reed's has. I cannot for the life of me see how he thinks Murray can clean up in 2012. It would require a massive dip in performances not by the top 3 but also the whole of the top 10. He has got to get real. To base 2012 on what he has seen in the last 2 months of the season is moranic.

The AO will always be the measuring stick of where players are and where they can be in the forthcoming season. What the last 2 months of this season showed is that if Nadal or Djokovic or even Murray have a dip in form at a Slam or Masters event, Federer will be there to pounce. To simplify it for Simon:

1) Can Djokovic continue his level of tennis without lasting consequences to his physical conditions and longevity?

2) Can Nadal move his game up a level or add a new dimension to counter Djokovic and even Federer?

3) Can Federer demonstrate consistency at all the Slams and even pick one up without the distraction of the Olympics?

4) Can Murray actually play aggressive tennis throughout a Slam?

5) How big of an impact will the Olympics have on the players and scheduling of the tennis season?

FedsFan wrote:Hello all,
Have missed all the action on the boards the last 10 days due to PC problems and a dead hard drive amounting to 4 and a half years of photos and other stuff being totally lost. Anyway, just read these two articles by the 5* reporter Simon Reed whose opinion seems to be like the daily weather: very changeable!

After Paris he writes that no one should get excited about Fed's resurgence and that a lot of factors contributed to the win i.e injuries, long matches and absences. He also writes that Novak and Nadal have the better of Fed in the slams now but believes Fed has one more slam left in him at some point in his career.
http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8003/

Two weeks later after the WTF its a different story in the articles 'Federer and Murray will clean up in 2012' http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/simon-reed/article/8181/. According to him the old Novak will return, Nadal is struggling and therefore Fed could possibly win a couple of slams next year and may even end up number one.

These two articles are to me in total contrast. The second article invalidates the first in my opinion. I can imagine if he sat on the fence but he seems to be jumping back and forth over that fence! Does he not read the comments under his works of literary genius?

Reed's not better or worse than some and certainly not as bad as 'grinning Greg'

I don't see the issue. A person is entitled to change their mind. As an oft mentioned quote, when a prominent politician was asked what would affect his parties re-election "Events dear boy. Events"

In other words as Fed looked as good as we'd seen him since Australia 2010, then it's quite right that Reed revises his opinion

Personally though, I think he's wrong. For me nothing as change and I think Fed is 4th favourite if the other three are fit and mentally on their game. And I would bloody well hope so, given their respective ages

bogbrush wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

That's because Keynes was an idiot. Changing facts don't change your opinion if you were right in the first place, because you're original accuracy will be unaltered by these new developments. Keynes was basically admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The financial crash of 2008, increasing now and soon to become a storm that will change all our lives hasn't made me change any of my opinions; I had correspondence with government ministers in 2004 explaining to them that this was exactly what was going to happen. But then, nobody saw this coming, did they?

Not certain we can equate something as slow moving as a financial crash to the every changing sports world, bogbrush!!

So for me there is a flaw in your argument. Certain changing facts will change opinion. So Nole having a body that can't last a year at No.1. Nadal having mental issues and Fed showing that there life in the old dog, all of which occured in the last couple of months, should surely make any intelligent person revise their opinion about what will happen in 2012 (assuming they thought Nadal and Nole were going to dominate 2012)

Not you of course, as we know you never lost faith in the Fed Man

One thing it does show, is how ridiculous making predictions is!!

banbrotam wrote:One thing it does show, is how ridiculous making predictions is!!

Wanna join the 606v2 World Tour 2012, banbrotam?

banbrotam wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

That's because Keynes was an idiot. Changing facts don't change your opinion if you were right in the first place, because you're original accuracy will be unaltered by these new developments. Keynes was basically admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The financial crash of 2008, increasing now and soon to become a storm that will change all our lives hasn't made me change any of my opinions; I had correspondence with government ministers in 2004 explaining to them that this was exactly what was going to happen. But then, nobody saw this coming, did they?

Not certain we can equate something as slow moving as a financial crash to the every changing sports world, bogbrush!!

So for me there is a flaw in your argument. Certain changing facts will change opinion. So Nole having a body that can't last a year at No.1. Nadal having mental issues and Fed showing that there life in the old dog, all of which occured in the last couple of months, should surely make any intelligent person revise their opinion about what will happen in 2012 (assuming they thought Nadal and Nole were going to dominate 2012)

Not you of course, as we know you never lost faith in the Fed Man

One thing it does show, is how ridiculous making predictions is!!

1. I have never believed Nole can keep this up for years.
2. I don't believe Fadal has any mental issues, he just has issues with people coming to terms with his game, same as happens to almost everyone who spends time at the top.
3. I have not changed my view that Federer is a threat but unlikely to win a Slam unless he can face just one of the top boys, because of the fitness issue.

So actually my views have not changed because of the last few months because I don't have the memory of a Goldfish, unlike Simon Reed (and others)

bogbrush wrote:I don't have the memory of a Goldfish, unlike Simon Reed (and others)

In defence of goldfish, studies have shown that their memories are quite good - up to 3 months. Some would argue this is longer than Simon Reed.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I don't have the memory of a Goldfish, unlike Simon Reed (and others)

In defence of goldfish, studies have shown that their memories are quite good - up to 3 months. Some would argue this is longer than Simon Reed.

Yes, let's just call him Salmon Reef!

Tenez wrote:
Yes, let's just call him Salmon Reef!

Always swimming against the flow and getting caught by the bears.

I have at least twice posted on Reed's blog about his predictions. If he is in your corner, that is usually a bad omen.

bogbrush wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:Not defending SR but I guess one has to agree that things have changed a bit in the last 3-4 months. Fed is looking good, Djoker not looking the world-beater, Nadal knackered and without 'passion' and Murray has also had good results.

He has changed views but then as Keynes would say (while replying to criticisms on changing views during the great depression) 'When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?'

That's because Keynes was an idiot. Changing facts don't change your opinion if you were right in the first place, because you're original accuracy will be unaltered by these new developments. Keynes was basically admitting that he didn't know what he was talking about.

The financial crash of 2008, increasing now and soon to become a storm that will change all our lives hasn't made me change any of my opinions; I had correspondence with government ministers in 2004 explaining to them that this was exactly what was going to happen. But then, nobody saw this coming, did they?

I am an investment banker by profession and having seen heads roll around a lot in the past 3-4 years and views/opinions change every couple of months; I must say that with so many variables and so much interlinkages, it is downright impossible to predict the outcome of atleast this financial crisis. In 2004, many could have seen things being wrong with leverage, fiscal deficits etc but did you see the extent of damage - not just in UK but worldwide? Can you, sitting now, know what wil happen to Greece, Spain, Italy and how that would have an impact on CDS, bonds and ultimately on banks and sovereigns....

I am not trying to bring down the value of your observations but all I am saying is that there are so many things unknown that the best one could do is to keep abreast of changing paradigms and position accordingly.

Even if all Sampras did was playing tennis (one of the world's best ever), he thought that it would be decades before anyone wins 14 majors and in less than 7 years, we had one and another one has racked up 10. With Fed's advent, opinions should have changed and similarly, with Fed and Murray's superlative performance towards the year end, opinions should have changed. After all, who knows if at the end of the year, all of us are wrong and Fed and Murray end up with 2 slams each. It is certainly not outlandish of him to suggest so, methinks...

It's down to being able to assess the situation and or skills of a player.

Knowing when Pete's record was going to be overtaken was certainly impossible to predict but for those who saw Federer win Wimbledon in 2003, sure suddenly, everything was possible. Some here argued Fed was not as good as Pete and therefore will not overtake him while of course others thouhgt otherwise...as soon as Fed started to show his skills and confidence.

I must say that one who surprised me thus far by his number of slams is Nadal! Though it can be explained partly by slower conds, it still an achievement that to me doesn't quite reflect his tennis skills. But I feel that one day we will understand better.

Regarding the economical situation, as you said, a few knew things were wrong and we were heading towards bigger problems. Some have even envsiaged the worse like a WWIII. No one really knows for certain the details but the outcome doesn't look good.

fedex_the_best wrote: After all, who knows if at the end of the year, all of us are wrong and Fed and Murray end up with 2 slams each. It is certainly not outlandish of him to suggest so, methinks...

Since SR did not predict Raonic or Tomic or Dimitrov to win slams, he is still going by past performances of the Top 4 and their abilities.

Lydian has drawn a parallel between Wilander 1988 and Djokovic 2011. Is that a good prediction of 2012?

The financial world now, does not reflect that past performances mean anything anymore. Should the current economic climate be blamed on the Euro or on the War on Terror?

Simon Reed is giving you brits a bad name and his tennis knowledge circulates around the top 4, he's probably never heard of the worlds number 5,6,7. He really looks exactly like my former english teacher

Where are you from JM?

Tenez wrote:I must say that one who surprised me thus far by his number of slams is Nadal! Though it can be explained partly by slower conds, it still an achievement that to me doesn't quite reflect his tennis skills. But I feel that one day we will understand better.

lol...its called talent to win through multiple attributes Tenez. I think you're starting to realise it as you look at what he's achieved. Lets not forget that the guy you eulogise as being the best ever to hold a racquet has found this one guy a royal thorn in his side, losing on all surfaces to him not just clay. Roger could work everyone else out and pretty much smash them into the ground but not Nadal. I think this shows, if nothing else, that Nadal has excellent skills - enough to regularly beat the guy with the most slams ever. One day people looking back will realise Nadal was a unique player, not just a fitness machine as many proclaim him to be. After all he must be - just look at the records he's set, look at the achievements by age of 24. They are amazing. If it was as easy as being the fittest/strongest ever we'd have loads of guys sharing the slams between them - the fact that before 2011 it was a complete monopoly between Federer and Nadal tells us all we need to know about how good these players are/were. You might not like his style but you cannot deny his achievements - and these level of achievements, over the course of time where the arguable GOAT has been pretty much at his peak, does not come without prodigous skills. Indeed they cannot come without them.

You would love to attribute Nadal's success to talent Lydian, wouldn't you? And you would love the world to acknowledge it too. However you know deep down that Nadal will never be remembered for his talent but his amazing physique....in an era where amazing physique and performances are just too common in sport.


Nadal will be remembered for many other things by other fans. Breaking the time rule, dubious MTOs and dubious cyclical performances. Just a poll here on v2 shows that 2 out of 3 are no fan of Nadal...strange for someone who colllected 10 slams. I don;t think Laver, Borg or Pete woudl get such low figures!

Sorry but you can't blame me for that.

Just a poll here on v2 shows that 2 out of 3 are no fan of Nadal

And in Madrid that figure is only slightly better (3/5).

JM, that is hardly surprising considering Mallorcans have a catalan history!

Tenez, I dont see 606v2 as a great representation of the tennis viewing public out there. Its not that I attribute his 10 slams, etc, to pure talent (note my use of "multiple attributes") - its that you dont ascribe any talent whatsoever to the guy and this is and always be frankly laughable.

lydian wrote:JM, that is hardly surprising considering Mallorcans have a catalan history!

Tenez, I dont see 606v2 as a great representation of the tennis viewing public out there. Its not that I attribute his 10 slams, etc, to pure talent - its that you dont ascribe any talent whatsoever to the guy and this is and always be frankly laughable.

Sure, I consider myself being talented too tennis wise and I am sure you and Nadal are too.

It's like a Godwin tennis law

Or Occam's Razor.

lydian wrote:Tenez, I dont see 606v2 as a great representation of the tennis viewing public out there. Its not that I attribute his 10 slams, etc, to pure talent (note my use of "multiple attributes") - its that you dont ascribe any talent whatsoever to the guy and this is and always be frankly laughable.

Pretty certain as the Sun rises in the East, that Tenez will cling to his rhetoric and would like all 606v2 to reflect his thought process.

Are the Spanish economic issues created by Nadal/Toni?

laverfan wrote:

fedex_the_best wrote: After all, who knows if at the end of the year, all of us are wrong and Fed and Murray end up with 2 slams each. It is certainly not outlandish of him to suggest so, methinks...

Since SR did not predict Raonic or Tomic or Dimitrov to win slams, he is still going by past performances of the Top 4 and their abilities.

Lydian has drawn a parallel between Wilander 1988 and Djokovic 2011. Is that a good prediction of 2012?

The financial world now, does not reflect that past performances mean anything anymore. Should the current economic climate be blamed on the Euro or on the War on Terror?

I dont know LF, I really dont. Till 2007, I thought I knew a lot and have come to really understand that I dont but neither does anyone, in my humble opinion.

Lydian had an interesting point. I was unable to appreciate it enough to change my opinions - if you still ask for my opinion, I think Fed at his best is the best tennis player even at this age among everyone and should win few slams next year. But had Fed lost in the first rounds of Basel, Paris and London, I would have been forced to think that may be his best is past. But now, I still hope/think that Fed can get couple of slams while Murray and Novak will rack up one each.

Many will say this prediction is preposterous but how do you assign a probability of Nadal winning FO next year based on the physicality and talent that he has vis-a-vis others - what factors will play a dominant role against a particular opponent on a given condition and ambience and what vectors need to align to have that factor being the most dominant during that match. In absence of all that, I think that Novak has an equal or better chances to triumph at RG than Nadal and Del Potro and Fed are also not far behind. So we all change our opinions and it is still much better to change opinions based on your observations rather than following what is preached by most.

And on the opinions on SR, I have seen a lot of Raonic, Dolgo, Tomic but I still dont make them favorite at slams. Because I dont have insights which is not available to anyone else. But is it a crime that I still choose Fed, Novak, Murray and Nadal favorite at slams for the next year atleast. Opinions need not be different - just because SR is paid to do his work, that doesnt mean, he should end up predicting Tomic's first GS victory - accept it, he cant but neither can you!

Who's clinging to what LF? That Nadal won 10 slams thanks to his superior talent over the rest of the field?

Nadal got bagelled 3 times this year alone including by a top 150!

Frankly that's a talent I could do without!

Tenez,

I think it is harsh to judge Nadal's talent on this year because he has been bagelled 3 times. The point many posters are making is that it is silly and foolish to judge next year on such short time frames of form. The whole point of this thread is that it is no sense of logic to do so.

I know your Nadal's biggest fan but if we are to compare say Sampras, Borg and Nadal's haul of Slams I think by the gauge of the field and the competition in their respective era's makes it a bit difficult to gauge. Had Borg played on beyond 26 would he have got the better of McEnroe or even emerging talents like Wilander or Becker or Lendl and added to his 11? Would Sampras have won less Slams if their was fiercer competition beyond Agassi, Courier or Rafter? Yes I would agree that Nadal would have been surprised by his haul of Slam titles, but what does Federer himself make of Nadal's haul given that in 2006/07 it was inconcievable that Nadal would best Federer at Wimbledon and Australian Open.

laverfan wrote:

FedsFan wrote:
Have missed all the action on the boards the last 10 days due to PC problems and a dead hard drive amounting to 4 and a half years of photos and other stuff being totally lost. Anyway, just read these two articles by the 5* reporter Simon Reed whose opinion seems to be like the daily weather: very changeable!

Very sorry to hear about this. Wish you had backups.

Unfortunately Laverfan I had not

I lost personal pics including some ones taken at Wimbledon, WTF and the Queens final from last year among others

legendkillar wrote:Tenez,

I think it is harsh to judge Nadal's talent on this year because he has been bagelled 3 times. The point many posters are making is that it is silly and foolish to judge next year on such short time frames of form. The whole point of this thread is that it is no sense of logic to do so.

It's not "harsh". It is just so. Nadal has lost 3 sets 60 as soon as he dropped slight form. Sorry but that is a very important and telling fact. What can save a top player when his physique is not 100%, if not talent? I am not saying he should win when not 100% but the fact he is at the mercy of many lower ranked players when not bursting of energy is another key characteristic of his game. In fact if you look at his match v Mayer, Nadal lost despite being much more mobile and stronger than Mayer.

Those are too important facts when talking about something difficult to quantify such as "talent".

I am not harsh, I am just using observation and logic. Some here simply draw a parallel between talent and achievement. That is clearly illogic, especially when clearly those 2 are hardly related nowadays.

legendkillar wrote:I know your Nadal's biggest fan but if we are to compare say Sampras, Borg and Nadal's haul of Slams I think by the gauge of the field and the competition in their respective era's makes it a bit difficult to gauge. Had Borg played on beyond 26 would he have got the better of McEnroe or even emerging talents like Wilander or Becker or Lendl and added to his 11? Would Sampras have won less Slams if their was fiercer competition beyond Agassi, Courier or Rafter? Yes I would agree that Nadal would have been surprised by his haul of Slam titles, but what does Federer himself make of Nadal's haul given that in 2006/07 it was inconcievable that Nadal would best Federer at Wimbledon and Australian Open.

No I don;t think Borg woudl have last much longer after he retired. I think he knew that and that is one reason why he retired early. I am a big fan of the man, but unlike others, it doesn;t make me blind. I am the first to recognise that Fed's lack of success recently is more due to Nadal and Djoko than a drop of form from the old man.

That's because I always base what I say on what I see. As simple as that. And when it comes to talent, I can see many more players out there being more talented than Nadal....but I don;t see many being as fit!

Tenez wrote:Who's clinging to what LF? That Nadal won 10 slams thanks to his superior talent over the rest of the field?

Nadal got bagelled 3 times this year alone including by a top 150!

Frankly that's a talent I could do without!

Nadal got bagelled in 2009 @Rotterdam by Murray in the third set, but won the second set 6-4.

Lacko @Doha 2011 third set 6-3 (Win).

Won the first set 6-3 against Murray @Tokyo 2011, but lost the match.

Bagels are not the only measure of a player.

Fedex_the_best wrote:But is it a crime that I still choose Fed, Novak, Murray and Nadal favorite at slams for the next year at least.

Not it is absolutely not. My apologies if it seemed offensive.

laverfan wrote:

Fedex_the_best wrote:But is it a crime that I still choose Fed, Novak, Murray and Nadal favorite at slams for the next year at least.

Not it is absolutely not. My apologies if it seemed offensive.

None required
LF is the best

Tenez wrote:Some here simply draw a parallel between talent and achievement. That is clearly illogic, especially when clearly those 2 are hardly related nowadays.

That may be true, but personally, overall, I rate achievement more than talent, when assessing a player's status in the game. Tennis players are athletes, after all, and their single goal is to win/achieve.
Obviously, I'd rather watch the more talented players, but then again if I wanted an exhibition of pure hand-to-eye co-ordination, I'd go to the circus and watch someone juggle 6 balls and throw knives at a spinning woman.

Or to put it another way, Nalbandian may be a better player than Nadal, but Nadal is the greater player.

Fedex_the_best wrote:
None required
LF is the best

IMVHO, Fedal is the best.