Is this a strong or a weak era? Confusing

First topic message reminder :

Given that one of Federer/ Nadal/ Djokovic have to lose before the finals and two have to lose before the tournament ends, it is a strong era. Those are 3 potential all time greats playing together. They could end up with more than 40 grand slams between them.

However, given that the top 4 have made it to the semis in 3 of the 4 slams (with Federer narrowly missing out at Wimbledon), it is a weak era.

Which is it? Or is it neither?

Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

Wrong, bb, because you guys don't just make accusations of doping in general without evidence you direct them at a certain player. And then wild assumptions are attached to Nadal. IE that if Nadal took less time he couldn't win. By the way there is a laundry list of players who abuse that rule, and nobody really even argues. I myself have stated they should enforce the time rule and if comes to it take a point. But if they don't enforce the rule for anyone that isn't Nadal's problem. He violates a rule that isn't ever enforced, almost like it doesn't exist.

Furthermore, you seem to think that there is a huge problem with the style of play in the modern game. I like it. So there we just differ in opinion. I always have preferred an aggressive baseline game. Always liked Connors over Mac. Preferred Agassi over Pete. In fact the only S and V guy I ever liked to watch was becker and Mac as well but I liked him later in his career and thought he was an ass earlier in his career.

Supported Federer when he played against Sampras in 2001, am sure most his fans on here are the same in that respect. I, unlike you, can find it within to support players of different nationality.

As can I JM. After all I have stated my favourite era was 1977-1985. No Scotsman playing then. My difference is I don't let personal bias get in the way of who I credit. I give credit where credit is due and have done to all of the top players of today unlike some.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

Exactly if Federer was playing players like Gonzalez and Baghdatis in Grand Slam finals he would be winning slams now.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

CC, The French Open played quicker than other Slams last year. Everyone on this forum even noticed that. New balls too and lots of fresh clay made it quicker than previous years.

No it was quick for clay, but overall US Open was still quicker.

amritia3ee wrote:No it was quick for clay, but overall US Open was still quicker.

Don't be silly.

Wet courts = Slower courts.

Even the organisers admitted it was slower due to new surfacing.

Legendkiller, do you not admit that if Federer faced in 2011:
-Gonzalez AO (at his peak)
-Baghdatis USO (at his peak)
-Roddick Wimby (at his peak)
he would still win 3 Grand Slams.
Even those 3 at their peak wouldn't get near Federer, we all know that.

amritia3ee wrote:Legendkiller, do you not admit that if Federer faced in 2011:
-Gonzalez AO (at his peak)
-Baghdatis USO (at his peak)
-Roddick Wimby (at his peak)
he would still win 3 Grand Slams.
Even those 3 at their peak wouldn't get near Federer, we all know that.

Yes he would defeat all 3 in my opinion.

Exactly.

I don't believe court conds as they stand at this moment in time explain the Slam drought experience by Federer. Age and quicker energised players mean that in a rally best of 10+ strokes he is second favourite.

Good point Amrita, if you go back and look at a lot fed's grandslam wins when not facing Nadal they were so one-sided that he would still beat those guys today even assuming those players at their peak. Fed hasn't lost that much, the competition is just better.

No to be honest the players who are now reaching latters stages of every Grand Slam, even troubled him when he was young. Nadal has always led the H2H on every surface a slam is played on.
It's just that now players like Rafa 9and now Novak) are reaching latter stages of Grand Slams more consistently as they are older, hence Fed slightly struggling.

socal1976 wrote:Good point Amrita, if you go back and look at a lot fed's grandslam wins when not facing Nadal they were so one-sided that he would still beat those guys today even assuming those players at their peak. Fed hasn't lost that much, the competition is just better.

Stop on

legendkillar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

CC, The French Open played quicker than other Slams last year. Everyone on this forum even noticed that. New balls too and lots of fresh clay made it quicker than previous years.

And, the US Open when he had match points against Djokovic? Sorry but the clues are there that this is far more than just a physical or court condition issue. My take on it is that the likes of Nadal and Djokovic are such good returners of serve ie can send a serve back and hit the baseline that it really puts Federer on the back foot like which never done to him so so consistently in his prime years ie 2003 to 2007.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

legendkillar wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

CC, The French Open played quicker than other Slams last year. Everyone on this forum even noticed that. New balls too and lots of fresh clay made it quicker than previous years.

And, the US Open when he had match points against Djokovic? Sorry but the clues are there that this is far more than just a physical or court condition issue. My take on it is that the likes of Nadal and Djokovic are such good returners of serve ie can send a serve back and hit the baseline that it really puts Federer on the back foot like which he was never done so consistentlt in his prime years ie 2003 to 2007.

Mentally he froze against Djokovic. Not doubt in that.

Gonzalez DESTROYED Nadal in 2007 3-0..so what you on about amrit??

I'll agree that Baghdatis isn't the toughest finalist ever but he has beaten Federer and Nadal before

Of course the courts are the problem for Federer. Yes they are more or less the same since 2007 (bar the USO which got even slower) but the fact is a couple of players, 3 actually, have pushed their fitness to new levels and are exploiting the slow conds to domainate better than a player using talent to win. Those 3 have the same retrieving game and the most efficient of them at rallying wins.

Forget teh fancy shots that used to give easy points. There are no easy points nowadays...well they don;t win you matches, that's for sure.

legendkillar wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Legendkiller, do you not admit that if Federer faced in 2011:
-Gonzalez AO (at his peak)
-Baghdatis USO (at his peak)
-Roddick Wimby (at his peak)
he would still win 3 Grand Slams.
Even those 3 at their peak wouldn't get near Federer, we all know that.

Yes he would defeat all 3 in my opinion.

So what are you people arguing on about here then? Seems you've summarised the whole thread in one sentence. Next....

Andy Roddick of Wimbledon 09 would destroy Nadull the same way Gonzalez and Tsonga have.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Andy Roddick of Wimbledon 09 would destroy Nadull the same way Gonzalez and Tsonga have.

A bit of respect eh? His name is Nadal.

Socal's, "era is determined by the top of the rankings", and Hulius', "an era is determined by the strength in depth of the field" hypotheses are both compelling and the answer might lie somewhere in between.

However, I believe my Whelk versus The Jellied Eels Era offers a more solid interpretation of the Men's game. I have previously espoused my theorem as comments on other threads in this forum and do not have the energy to repeat it here (unfortunately my restorative egg chamber broke down). However, I am considering submitting it to the International Journal of Paella Studies for publication.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Gonzalez DESTROYED Nadal in 2007 3-0..so what you on about amrit??

Yes Nadal wan't great on Hard Courts at the time.

Nore Staat wrote:However, I am considering submitting it to the International Journal of Paella Studies for publication.

Reminds of bad joke (I know it's bad, 'cos I made it up).
A Spaniard and a Swiss go into a cafe. The Spaniard says to the barmaid "got any pie, Ella?". Ella says "No, and I don't like your Swiss friend". The Spaniard says "That's strange, he's quite fondue".

Originality is best - I'll borrow it for my "Jamaica" joke party routine

socal1976 wrote:Veejay, you have produced evidence that we all new existed that doping takes place in tennis. Oh my god, not shocking or refutted by anyone. But you have not produced direct evidence that Nadal is doped up. But yet you discount him, until I see a positive test result I can't convict the man. Not on your viewing his body on television.

And Craig hits it right on the head, the conduct of some, not all fed fans is a bit unsporting. Cut down all the great players today, the style of play, their supposed unproven doping, their inferiority, their cheating; and then well what do you expect other people's reaction to be? And the fact that fed doesn't need apologists, and yet a certain segment of his fans spend most of their posts acting like apologists makes it even more annoying.

Once again there is that double standard..if you believe there are athletes doping then you have to be open to the idea that any athlete could be doing that.But its pretty clear your stance has been everyone else can be doping just not Nadal
because there is no proof.Well where is your proof to suggest everyone else could be doping?
Im not going to bother to repeat everything I have posted on that other thread cause 1 you havent bothered to respond to it and 2 you couldnt dispute any of it.If you could have you would have but you didn't so you couldnt
Once again you can base your opinion on what you see but I cant
You won't believe it until you see a positive test but yet you can claim the sport isn't clean when you have no positive tests for anyone else.If you need proof to believe an athlete is doping how can you say the sport isn't clean? Name one athlete currently in the draw who has tested positive for banned substances. If you cant name one how can you say the sport isnt clean?

I don't think anyone has to apologise for anything Fed does or any of his short comings.It is what it is, I mean who needs to apologise for a player who has made at least 5 grand slam finals at every grand slam event spanning over 3 generations,none of it achieved through dodgy poor sportsmanship? Theres really no need to build Roger up by tearing everyone else down.I can understand there are some lunatics who will stop at nothing to try and prove his GOATness but Im not one of them and so far I havent seen any evidence to suggest anyone else on this forum is doing that.For the most part it seems most posters here are pretty fairly level headed
If I were a Nadal fan Id probably be spending all day long trying to apologise for everything he does.I won't make any secret of it,I cant support the guy because of his poor sportsmanship alone ( forget about the suspicions),this has nothing to do with bias or being a fan of anyone,he has made it impossible for me to support him.I cant be blamed for that

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:.... until I starting posting guff about him a la Tenez with Rafael Nadal then you can say I have a problem.

Everything I say about Nadal is right. The guff is on you with laughable phrases like "Murray is better than Federer". YOu are just way too much of fan to realise how much you are a fan.

Unlike you supporting Murray, my supporting of Federer has nothing to do with nationality. That gives me a good head start over you in terms of objectivity! And our respective arguments just prove that.

Is CaledonianCraig English or Scottish cause Im wondering if that Caledonian refers to living in London
Im a Londoner too,but not a Murray fan,his arrogance puts me off.What I do find hilarious is how he is British when he wins and Scottish when he loses

Could you please demonstrate this arrogance? Arrogance I'd say is a negative description or trait so why then, is he so popular with other tennis pros? And surprised veejay this is coming from you considering you had a pop at me for supposedly having something against Federer but here you are with something against Murray. And I am Scottish by the way.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Court conditions have nothing to do with Federer's failure to win a slam in two years - it is because of the quality standing in his way. Just a pitiful shame that some can't admit this and what this has to do with Murray I don't know.

If court conditions are killing Fed's chances how come he beat Djokovic on the slowest surface under a year ago and came within match points of beating him on one of the quickest courts around six months ago.

As for supporting a player for where he lives yes it is when he started but his style of play, range of shots etc has re-inforced that. I mean I follow snooker but am not too fussed about Steven Maguire, whilst in football I don't like say Kris Boyd etc etc so it is just not about national bias. I could levy an accusation at fans backing Federer as being glory-hunters. It does happen in all realms of sport.

While I agree the players beating him have over taken him,Im getting the feeling you're kinda hinting that Roger benefitted from a weak era and the reason why he hasn't won a major is because he is facing tougher competition then he did back in his hay day.
If Im correct,didn't you earlier say you believed Roger was the GOAT?
So who does that work? Is he the GOAT so that your argument can be consistent and then you can strip him of that title by proving that a 30 year old cant be the GOAT because he cant beat the younger generation to win grand slams ? Or is it just plainly a contradiction?
As for the point itself,its no secret the courts have been slowed down,even the faster hard courts have and its also common knowledge that Rogers game suits a faster court better.Whether or not thats a direct result for him not winning a major is impossible to tell,but I wouldn't rule out the possibility that it could play part no matter how small a part that is

socal1976 wrote: I don't feel the need to continually bemoan bigger balls and slower courts to make a certain someone look better than he already does.

Who as been moaning since Murray-Djo match and Sunday's final about how high quality the matches were? Who has been whining like a silly girl about how spectacular the match was giving pointless evidences like my father, my girl, my dog, everyone else loved it. Who has been posting trash about weak era and strong era throughout his presence on 606v2. Who has been writing numerous articles about how great Djokovic is when he hasn't even completed a year at #1 and still gets bageled by a player outside top 40. Who has been trying to tarnish players of the previous generation Like Nalby, Gonzales, Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Lubicic to make his favorite player look better and his stupid era theory any correct.

This is what you have been crying before you left 606v2 and you surely started from just where you had last left. You don't have guts to argue on points put by veejay. Then you run away like a loser and start the same weak era, great top-4 trash on another thread. Now at yourself.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Could you please demonstrate this arrogance? Arrogance I'd say is a negative description or trait so why then, is he so popular with other tennis pros? And surprised veejay this is coming from you considering you had a pop at me for supposedly having something against Federer but here you are with something against Murray. And I am Scottish by the way.

Im not being hypocritical here,I will be the first to admit that Roger is arrogant,can be very smug and doesn't ever give credit where credit is due.If ever he he gives a compliment he almost immediately takes it back.It took him forever to admit that Nadal isn't as one diminutional as he thought he was.Obviously the guy is a complete perfectionist and not much is going to impress him unless its something he cant do better,that doesn't excuse some of his snide comments but it gives me an idea of where they are coming from.Roger may be my favourite player but I don't need to build him up to be something he isn't,he may come close to perfection on the tennis court,but he is human like the rest of us

When Murray jumped to no2 in the world when Nadal was out on injury back in 09,in a press conference I think it was in Cincinnati,or just before the U.S Open his response was something along the lines of " only a few more weeks then Im no1" Truth is he couldnt even hang onto that ranking for longer then 2 weeks but yet he thought that he could dethrone Roger Federer without as much as a major under his belt.Last season he couldnt hang onto the no 3 ranking for longer then 3 weeks,so at least there was a weeks improvement,and once again Roger had to nip Murray's ego in the bud.But this is a classic example of how Murray allows his ego getting ahead of himself.Of course he should believe he can dethrone an all time great like Roger to be able to do it,but to say it so confidently when he has zero to back his ego up with doesn't go down well with me
I think all sportsman have some arrogance,its part and parcel with striving to be the best,you have to believe you're the best to be the best,but the point I was trying to make was that when you don't have the goods to back it up with then I find that arrogance off putting.Roger may be arrogant and smug but at least he has records to back that up.Murray has nothing,he cant even win a set off someone in a grand slam final.I also find him unbearable to watch,his miserable persona,hand gestures,how he celebrates a point and his game,I don't think I have ever seen anyone make the game of tennis look as ugly as him.Everything he does is grotesque!

I never had a pop at you about Federer,I simply asked you what you have against him as almost every one of the comments I have read from you was about Roger in a negative way.In no way have I ever said or hinted that you're not entitled to your opinion,I just wanted to know whats your motivation.I gave my opinion of Murray which Im entitled to and this is really the first time I have completely centred my comment around Murray

Veejay wrote:Im not being hypocritical here,I will be the first to admit that Roger is arrogant,can be very smug and doesn't ever give credit where credit is due.If ever he he gives a compliment he almost immediately takes it back.It took him forever to admit that Nadal isn't as one diminutional as he thought he was.Obviously the guy is a complete perfectionist and not much is going to impress him unless its something he cant do better,that doesn't excuse his comments but it gives me an idea of where they are coming from.

I think he still thinks Nadal is one D but of course he learnt his lesson and will try to say it more diplomatically. Last year he said, "He does one thing very well and plays with more margins". That is a more diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

Yes your first two points are correct but titles won are titles won in my book and so that is why Federer with the most slams of all-time puts him as GOAT in my eyes. The point about 30-year-old winning titles was used to demonstrate that players aged 30+ in the past have won slamd so Fed's age should not count against him in his bid to win slams especially, if those people who feel this era is not too strong, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, since he can't win a slam just now just re-iterates how strong an era this is compared to say ten years ago. As for court conditions as I've said if they were so damaging to Federer would have been so close to beating Djokovic at the US Open?

Loved watching Stich play....for me had the most graceful service action ever, hardly seemed to hit the ball and yet it flew at 135mph (timed in the old days...probably nearer 140+ by todays calibration). Also had a fantastic SHBH...I judge the SHBH players by how well they can hit that down DTL from a cross-court shot...and he played that shot as well as anyone I've ever seen...maybe the best even. Up at the top level with volleying also. But shame about his FH and court movement or could have been a truly awesome player.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:Im not being hypocritical here,I will be the first to admit that Roger is arrogant,can be very smug and doesn't ever give credit where credit is due.If ever he he gives a compliment he almost immediately takes it back.It took him forever to admit that Nadal isn't as one diminutional as he thought he was.Obviously the guy is a complete perfectionist and not much is going to impress him unless its something he cant do better,that doesn't excuse his comments but it gives me an idea of where they are coming from.

I think he still thinks Nadal is one D but of course he learnt his lesson and will try to say it more diplomatically. Last year he said, "He does one thing very well and plays with more margins". That is a more diplomatic way of saying the same thing.

I don't think many people get his humour,imagine having to answer the same questions over and over,day in and day out in press conferences when you're highly strung and feeling very emotional.Im not surprised that he tries to at least make it interesting and humour himself when answering the same questions over and over again

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes your first two points are correct but titles won are titles won in my book and so that is why Federer with the most slams of all-time puts him as GOAT in my eyes. The point about 30-year-old winning titles was used to demonstrate that players aged 30+ in the past have won slamd so Fed's age should not count against him in his bid to win slams especially, if those people who feel this era is not too strong, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, since he can't win a slam just now just re-iterates how strong an era this is compared to say ten years ago. As for court conditions as I've said if they were so damaging to Federer would have been so close to beating Djokovic at the US Open?

CC,

I'm just going to ask you once...

1. You've claimed that you've been watching tennis since mid-70s... You must have heard the concept of match-ups...

Don't you think that Federer defeats Djokovic or comes very close but loses convincingly almost always to Nadal has something to do with match-up? He defeated Djoko in FO last year and lost to Nadal. Had he beaten Djoko at USO I'm pretty sure he would've lost soundly to Nadal in Final... Similar story here at AO this year... I believe he was playing well enough to defeat Djoko but again lost out to Nadal...

So a surface slow or fast he would fair well with Djoko but not with Nadal (except low-bouncing indoor hard)...

2. You believe court conditions have nothing to do with his losses... How would you explain then his utter pwnage of Nadal on Indoor hard but Nadal pretty much owns him elsewhere?

That's easy, Nadal doesn't care about meaningless end of season exhibitions when the is a holiday or Davis Cup to look forward to after a tiring season.

Court conditions are not the reason Fed is not wining slams. Yes court conditions define what players win which tournaments and that was the same case as when Federer won his slams. I say that court conditions are not the key reason nor is physicality for Fed not winning slams anymore. That is my opinion. I tend to feel that players like Nadal and Djokovic in particular are such immense returners of serve that they can return Fed's serve into areas he is not so comfortable such as virtually on the baseline or out wide in and they develop the points from there. That is what Federer struggles to deal with in my opinion.

So both play a similar game against Federer (great return in the areas he is not comfortable with... and Murray plays the great return game as well) but then again he loses to Nadal convincingly but run Djoko and Murray close and defeats them a lot of times...

Nothing to do with match-up??

Of course some players match-up better against some players than others. I have never said that isn't the case.

Nadal, Murray and Djokovic are simple better players, especially defence, compared to Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis etc.

Then you do believe that Fed defeating Djoko at FO and coming close to win at USO was to do with matchup... As mentioned in above post, Fed lost to Nadal at FO last year, very nearly lost to Djoko (but could've won and would've been toast against Nadal again in Final) and lost again to Nadal here at the AO...

He had a real chance of winning atleast 1 or 2 of these (I think at least on that we can agree on) but because of a nightmare matchup that is Nadal he hasn't won...

So, don't ask why he cannot win slams at 30...

CaledonianCraig wrote:Yes your first two points are correct but titles won are titles won in my book and so that is why Federer with the most slams of all-time puts him as GOAT in my eyes. The point about 30-year-old winning titles was used to demonstrate that players aged 30+ in the past have won slamd so Fed's age should not count against him in his bid to win slams especially, if those people who feel this era is not too strong, then it shouldn't be a problem. However, since he can't win a slam just now just re-iterates how strong an era this is compared to say ten years ago. As for court conditions as I've said if they were so damaging to Federer would have been so close to beating Djokovic at the US Open?

Federer won 16 majors in a span of 27 majors (2003 Wimbledon – 2010 Australian Open), while Sampras won 14 majors in the span in 49 majors (1990 US Open – 2002 US Open).Thats less titles spanning over nearly twice the time frame
This to me proves that the window of opportunity is much smaller today then is was back in the 90's
While I agree that Federers age shouldn't count against him,it should be used to count for him and then if he fails to live up to expectation to then use that against him
I think its silly to use the fact that a 30 year old player cant win a slam against younger generation as means to validate your opinion that its a strong era.I could in turn say,why is a 30 year old still ranked 3rd in the world? Wouldnt that suggest that its a weak era? Of course this is Federer we are talking about,no ordinary player,but he is still a 30 year old beating all but 2 players consistently,in fact theres truly only a single player who really stands in his way.Everyone else he can beat.
But like I said before,I don't believe there are weak or strong eras,there are only match ups
Tennis is all about match ups,If one player enjoys a good match up over another like Roger did with Roddick it doesn't make an era weak.The way things are heading,it won't be long before Djokovic's h2h over Nadal could look the same,are we then going to say Djokovic benefited from a weak era?
Federer coming close to beating Djokovic has more to do with match up rather then surface,same goes with him losing to Nadal.While Federer clearly seems to enjoy fast courts and has great success on them,he has been pretty successful on them all.Laver said something really interesting in an interview just a few weeks ago,he believes that if Federer were playing in his era,he would be the most dominant player and that he feels many of the current players are manufactured by technology.AO was slowed down just this season and I believe,correct me if Im wrong the U.S Open is now playing slower too,whether that has a significant impact on Roger ability to win is impossible to tell because of his success on all kinds of surfaces but like I said we cant rule out the possibility,but at the same time that shouldn't be used as an excuse for any loses
I understand the point you're trying to make,I don't think this era is weak at all,neither do I think its stronger then the previous one

Oh cmon forget match-up Nadal and Djokovic are just better players than Ljubicic, Baghdatis etc.
Just accept it.

CC, whilst it is true that Djoko is the best returner he's had to deal with since Agassi, up until last year he's been relatively comfortable against Djoko. What's changed more since 2010, Djoko's ability to return, or his fitness?

Against Nadal, it's not the return of serve, it's the relentless targetting of the BH coupled with outlasting Fed if it gets to 5 sets - at least that's what Rafa says.

amritia3ee wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Correct.

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Correct.

Not a desparate tactic at all there Spuranik. Funny though

spuranik wrote:Ljubicic, Blake, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are simple better players, especially attack and shotmaking compared to Nadal, Murray and Djokovic etc.

Firstly stop misquoting me, I never said that.
Secondly LOL. Dream on mate dream on.

JuliusHMarx wrote:CC, whilst it is true that Djoko is the best returner he's had to deal with since Agassi, up until last year he's been relatively comfortable against Djoko. What's changed more since 2010, Djoko's ability to return, or his fitness?

Against Nadal, it's not the return of serve, it's the relentless targetting of the BH coupled with outlasting Fed if it gets to 5 sets - at least that's what Rafa says.

10000x this... That's what I wanted to say with my match-up post...