30 year old Lopez reaches career high ranking

First topic message reminder :

In the Golden Era, another veteran thrives.

Just saying.

That's bit to say federer is not great in any way, as we saw today the magician really can produce some brilliant tennis, he's a fantastic player.

amritia3ee wrote:Murray and Djokovic were young 2007/2008. Agassi was past their prime for most of the period, similar about Hewitt. Roddick meanwhile only really had one shot, wasn't a great baseliner.

What was the ranking of Murray and Djokovic? Who won at Canada in 2007? What was the scoreline of 2007 final?

What was the ranking of Agassi in 2006 USO final? And Hewitt was not in his prime in 2004?

And what about Gonzo? No answer for that?

And what about Nadal having no inspirational/brilliant players to beat??


Nice sidetracking and dismissing statements in one line...

Murray and Djokovic were not at their peak. Hewitt was past it, and I don't think he is as good as someone like Djokovic anyway. Agassi was 35 years old in 2005, and Gonzalez didn't show any sort of consistency.

Djokovic was not at his peak until 2011. I'm hoping Murray has not yet reached his peak.

Both Murray and Djokovic have improved hugely since 2007.

Murray is better now than Ljubicic, gonzalez and Baghdatis ever were.

amritia3ee wrote:Murray and Djokovic were not at their peak. Hewitt was past it, and I don't think he is as good as someone like Djokovic anyway. Agassi was 35 years old in 2005, and Gonzalez didn't show any sort of consistency.

Once again... any answers to my questions? What was Djokovic's ranking when he faced Fed in Final of 2007 and what sort of form he was in? Who won in Montreal 2007?

Gonzalez didn't show any consistency.. well my question was did you watch him play in Kooyong classic and AO 2007?

And I am not comparing Gonzo or Baggy or Ljubicic (why you keep on bringing him into discussion is beyond me...) to current generation players? I am talking specifically about their performance in a particular tournament.

Please watch some clips of Ljubo playing in ARAG World team cup from 2006-07 and tell me what you find...

amritia3ee wrote:Both Murray and Djokovic have improved hugely since 2007.

Murray played in final vs Fed in 2008...

amritia3ee wrote:Murray is better now than Ljubicic, gonzalez and Baghdatis ever were.

Yep, Federer would never beat Murray at his current level.

The likes of Baghdatis and Gonzalez are too often dismissed as some sort of hapless journeymen.

Sure, they're well below Murray in terms of overall career achievements, no doubt on that.
But Baggy has at least won a set in a Slam Final (something Andy has still to do) and Gonzo allowed Rafa (when ranked No. 2) just 9 games whilst putting him out of the AO.

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Both Murray and Djokovic have improved hugely since 2007.

Murray played in final vs Fed in 2008...

I think Djokovic is now fulfilling the promise he showed in 2007. He has made huge improvements from looking as if he had lost his way in 2010. Murray, however, has stagnated a little I think - I am sure it is a matter of courage/confidence - but in 2008 and for the first part of 2009, apart from odd blip, he seemed to pose a very real danger in every tournament and was favourite to win quite a few - he is unlikely atm to be made a favourite pre tournament over the other top guys because although he has been consistent he hasn't landed as many big titles in the last year as previously.

lags72 wrote:The likes of Baghdatis and Gonzalez are too often dismissed as some sort of hapless journeymen.

Sure, they're well below Murray in terms of overall career achievements, no doubt on that.
But Baggy has at least won a set in a Slam Final (something Andy has still to do) and Gonzo allowed Rafa (when ranked No. 2) just 9 games whilst putting him out of the AO.

Exactly lags, that was my point when I was asking to see the way Gonzo played at Kooyong and AO 2007...

I still remember Ljubicic at ARAG world team cup in 2006-07... He was simply unplayble on clay... And who can forget his exploits in DC against USA? He defeated A-ROD over 5 sets playing against not just a spirited opponent but also a US partisan crowd...

Maybe I need to remind what an inspired player means for a particular tournament... Remember exploits of Tsonga in AO 2008 and then you will understand why we don't dismiss likes of Gonzo and Baggy...

Can I just point out that in February 2005 Vincent Spadea (France) at the age of 30 achieved his highest ever ranking reaching No.18 in the world. At this time you had Agassi ranked No.8 aged 34 and the youngest player in the top ten at that time was Andy Roddick at No.2 who was 22. Also in their late 20's in the top five was Carlos Moya at 28.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Can I just point out that in February 2005 Vincent Spadea (France) at the age of 30 achieved his highest ever ranking reaching No.18 in the world. At this time you had Agassi ranked No.8 aged 34 and the youngest player in the top ten at that time was Andy Roddick at No.2 who was 22. Also in their late 20's in the top five was Carlos Moya at 28.

Surprising that you picked Spadea as an example.

Look at what happens to Spadea (USA not France) in the following weeks.

23.05.2005 41 196 (R2 lost to Haas, RG)
16.05.2005 43 198 (1-2 W/L in Dusseldorf ARAG Team event)
09.05.2005 43 194 (R1 lost to Coria, Hamburg)
02.05.2005 33 193
25.04.2005 32 186
18.04.2005 34 191
11.04.2005 33 193 (R1 lost to Stepanek, Monte Carlo)
04.04.2005 33 194
21.03.2005 23 196 (R3 lost to Ljubicic, Miami)
07.03.2005 21 203 (R1 lost to Jan Hernych, IW)
28.02.2005 18 203

Vincent Spadea a real world beater Caledonian. Agassi in early 2003 at nearly 33 years old reached #1 in that time period. That is two years older than Roger right now, and Roger is rated by everyone as the GOAT. Sorry, I love Gonzo and Baghy two of my top 5 players. But they are not particularly tough competition in a grandslam final and are not consistent players.

Shame Gonzo is going to retire, will miss that forehand of his hit from the hip. Looks like I will move young Mr. Harrison into my top 5 of current players to replace the chilean shot maker. Thanks for the memories Gonzo, as fun as you are to watch it still doesn't change my thesis, not a particularly difficult grandslam final for Rog.

Funny that BB keeps pointing to the middling success of Lopez, fish, and ferrer in the current era. But he conveniently fails to mention how Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Safin fared against the new era of competition. These players in the weaker era were top 5 performers who completed dissappeared and became irrelevant in the big tournaments. But I guess former world #1s struggling to stay in the top 20 isn't telling about the strength of eras. But a couple of guys managing to stay ranked in the top 10 or 20 who still have no impact at the grandslams or big tournaments is telling. The standard bearers of that generation outside of Roger were completely upended by the newer players. The golden generation of Rafa, murray, Novak, Berdy, Tsonga, and later Del PO.

socal1976 wrote: The golden generation of Rafa, murray, Novak, Berdy, Tsonga, and later Del PO.

Goldern generation? Couldn't summon up a decent level of play between them this week, surely? Put them on a vaguely fast court and it's UE's all over the place, so I'm told.

God it is hard to have any discussion with you Socal...

socal1976 wrote:Vincent Spadea a real world beater Caledonian. Agassi in early 2003 at nearly 33 years old reached #1 in that time period. That is two years older than Roger right now, and Roger is rated by everyone as the GOAT. Sorry, I love Gonzo and Baghy two of my top 5 players. But they are not particularly tough competition in a grandslam final and are not consistent players.

I specifically asked about Gonzo's performance in AO 2007 and Kooyong classic... Wasn't he playing great? Roddick and Gonzo were in real good form at Kooyong and were confident coming into AO. Roddick reached Semi-final (got completed obliterated), Gonzo reached final (played well and lost).

Gonzo and Baggy are dismissed because they were not consistent. Roddick is dismissed as one trick pony. Agassi dismissed as too old. Murray and Djokovic as too young...

socal1976 wrote:Shame Gonzo is going to retire, will miss that forehand of his hit from the hip. Looks like I will move young Mr. Harrison into my top 5 of current players to replace the chilean shot maker. Thanks for the memories Gonzo, as fun as you are to watch it still doesn't change my thesis, not a particularly difficult grandslam final for Rog.

The only reason he is not a particularly difficult finalist for Federer is because Fed's game matched well with most big hitters.

Why should Fed should be considered a good opponent for Nadal on clay then? Fed is a dream match-up for Nadal on that surface. Lets dismiss all of Nadal's wins because all he had in finals was Fed, Puerta and Soderling...

But if you want gruelling five setter as a final every time and then only think it is a good final then...

socal1976 wrote:Funny that BB keeps pointing to the middling success of Lopez, fish, and ferrer in the current era. But he conveniently fails to mention how Roddick, Hewitt, Ferrero, and Safin fared against the new era of competition. These players in the weaker era were top 5 performers who completed dissappeared and became irrelevant in the big tournaments. But I guess former world #1s struggling to stay in the top 20 isn't telling about the strength of eras. But a couple of guys managing to stay ranked in the top 10 or 20 who still have no impact at the grandslams or big tournaments is telling. The standard bearers of that generation outside of Roger were completely upended by the newer players. The golden generation of Rafa, murray, Novak, Berdy, Tsonga, and later Del PO.

Gee Socal, players do get older and new generations always fare well against older one. Hewitt, Safin, Fed defeated likes of Agassi, Sampras, Rafter etc. If you are forgetting, Hewitt at this age took a set off Novak at AO whose career is beset by injuries. Haas and Safin have defeated Djokovic at Wimbledon.

Spuranik, Andy Roddick was an afterthought at slams by age 23, similar to hewitt, and ferrero as well. The game passed these guys up in their physical primes. Of course eventually the old guys start losing to the younger generation. Safin in his mid twenties struggled to stay in the top 20. We aren't talking about Sampras at 29 and 30 struggling against hewitt and safin. What we are talking about are players who shoud be entering their physical peaks in their early to mid 20s getting completely and utterly wiped out by the new generation of players. Hewitt done by 24 or 25, Ferrero no longer relevant past his mid 20s, Safin can't even stay in the top 20, and Roddick no longer a threat at slams by his mid 20s.


This to me is a lot more telling of the difference in quality level when the standard bearers of the early 2000s competely dissappear from the scene in their early to mid 20s. As opposed to mid level stars Ferrer, Fish, and Lopez who never decided a slam back then and don't determine slam winners now either.

Who does fed have to face in latter stages of Grand slams now:
QF Del potro (USO 2009 beat fedal), Tsonga (beat fed at Wimby+2008 AO), Berdych (beat fed at Wimby).
SF NADAl/DJOKOVIC
F NADAL/DJOKOVIC/MURRAY

I don't care what surface it's on, irrelevant of Feds form and or if he's playing in planet mars where the conditions are slow/rapid/bouncy; that's a tough challenge. Now compare that to who he had to beat in AO 2006 for example, the latter stages were much easier for fed.

socal1976 wrote:Safin can't even stay in the top 20, and Roddick no longer a threat at slams by his mid 20s.

Although Safin beat Djoko at Wimby 2008 and Roddick at 14-all in the 2009 final was, believe ot or not, in with a chance of winning, rather than not a threat.
Certainly as much of a threat as, say Borg, McEnroe, Wilander or Edberg were after reaching 26 or so.

socal1976 wrote:Spuranik, Andy Roddick was an afterthought at slams by age 23 ............

Roddick no longer a threat at slams by his mid 20's

Yeah, beating a 'Golden Generation' Murray in the semi and losing the 2009 Wimbledon final 16-14 in the final set of the final is obvious strong evidence of your knowledge.

Frankly, you have no credibility left.

amritia3ee wrote:
I don't care what surface it's on, irrelevant of Feds form and or if he's playing in planet mars where the conditions are slow/rapid/bouncy; that's a tough challenge. Now compare that to who he had to beat in AO 2006 for example, the latter stages were much easier for fed.

R1 Istomin (who played the final of SAP Open in 2012)
R2 Florian Mayer (who beat Nadal in Shanghai 2011)
R3 Max Mirnyi (beat Phillippoussis, Blake and Bjorkman at W 2006)
R4 Tommy Haas (who almost beat Federer at RG 2009, in 5 sets)
R5 Davydenko (seeded 5 in 4 sets, 2 in TB)
R6 Kiefer (who came from the Hewitt quarter)
R7 Baghdatis (who had beaten - seed 7 Ljubicic in 5 sets, and Nalbandian seeded 4 in 5 sets)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/draws/2006_MS_1.html

Thankyou Laverfan, as I said Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are much harder than the names posted above.
Full analysis and comparison in that issue:
https://www.606v2.com/t20972p300-the-big-debate-2006vs2011

Shameless advertising I know

amritia3ee wrote:Thankyou Laverfan, as I said Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are much harder than the names posted above.

I would highly recommend watching the old AO matches here... http://vault.australianopentv.com/

What do you think of Hewitt beating Raonic at AO 2012, or Melzer beating Raonic or Tomic losing to Isner?

amritia3ee wrote:Thankyou Laverfan, as I said Nadal/Djokovic/Murray are much harder than the names posted above.
Full analysis and comparison in that issue:
https://www.606v2.com/t20972p300-the-big-debate-2006vs2011

Shameless advertising I know

Why names posted above are not hard as Nadal/Djok/Murray? Just because you say so?

LF clearly states how dangerous these players are as shown in bracket...

A Keifer/ Baghdatis finish is much easier than a Djokovic/ nadal finish. What has Laverfan written in brackets? Keifer came from Hewitts quarter, interesting. Baghdatis had already played 2 5 setters, interesting. Davydenko was a choker in slams, he could only play well in masters etc. never reached a GS final.

But has a healthy h2h position with Nadal.

What fun!

Yes my point exactly. He's a choker in slams.

So Nadal loses to chokers.

Wouldn't it make more sense if people avoided lazy labels they don't really understand?

I said in Grand slams. Choking isn't the right word..
Davydenko can't perform when it matters most.

Regarding Kiefer, in 2008, Kiefer beat Fish, Youzhny, Davydenko, Blake, Simon (who had beaten Federer in R1), and lost to Nadal in the final.

This is two years after the AO final. He won Dubai in 2000 beating Ferrero. His highest ranking of ATP #4 was in 2000, and yet he managed to reach the AO 2006 SF and played a 4-setter with Federer.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Tennis/Players/Ki/N/Nicolas-Kiefer.aspx?t=pa&y=2008&m=s&e=421#

http://www.atpworldtour.com/posting/2008/421/mds.pdf

amritia3ee wrote:I said in Grand slams. Choking isn't the right word..
Davydenko can't perform when it matters most.

Just like 2012 ATP #5 Ferrer and winner of Acapulco (one below his highest 2008 ranking of ATP #4).

At least Davy has one of the best Finals records 21-6 and is #2 in Open Era behind Muster.

Just as an example, Murray is #9, Federer is #10, Nadal is #14, Djokovic is #16.

Look at who is #14 and #17.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Reliability-Zone/Reliability-Finals-Career-List.aspx

It is highly recommended that you watch this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvaYDyVXAww

and some of his other matches.

Davydenko can't perform in slams, accept it.

socal1976 wrote:This to me is a lot more telling of the difference in quality level when the standard bearers of the early 2000s competely dissappear from the scene in their early to mid 20s. As opposed to mid level stars Ferrer, Fish, and Lopez who never decided a slam back then and don't determine slam winners now either.

It's funny how you talk about quality level, quality players, quality everything when at the end of the day you seem only interested in quantity! Quantity rallies and quantity shots over actual quality.

You seem unable to appreciate quality despite talking about it. Dubai was quality. AO and USO final was quantity.

Tenez wrote:
It's funny how you talk about quality level, quality players, quality everything when at the end of the day you seem only interested in quantity! Quantity rallies and quantity shots over actual quality.

You seem unable to appreciate quality despite talking about it. Dubai was quality. AO and USO final was quantity.

I am very impressed with your excellent command of English, Tenez.

I shall refrain from entering your discussion with SoCal.

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Spuranik, Andy Roddick was an afterthought at slams by age 23 ............

Roddick no longer a threat at slams by his mid 20's

Yeah, beating a 'Golden Generation' Murray in the semi and losing the 2009 Wimbledon final 16-14 in the final set of the final is obvious strong evidence of your knowledge.

Frankly, you have no credibility left.

Yes and getting bombed in the previous years by Richard Gasquet and Andy Murray, when big bad Roddick has Richard Gasquet a talented player who is not even anywhere near the top of his generation smoke 100 winners on him. Or Ljubicic losing to Baggy in the 4th round of the AO.

Newsflash, BB I really don't value your opinion that highly to care what you think about my credibility.

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
I don't care what surface it's on, irrelevant of Feds form and or if he's playing in planet mars where the conditions are slow/rapid/bouncy; that's a tough challenge. Now compare that to who he had to beat in AO 2006 for example, the latter stages were much easier for fed.

R1 Istomin (who played the final of SAP Open in 2012)
R2 Florian Mayer (who beat Nadal in Shanghai 2011)
R3 Max Mirnyi (beat Phillippoussis, Blake and Bjorkman at W 2006)
R4 Tommy Haas (who almost beat Federer at RG 2009, in 5 sets)
R5 Davydenko (seeded 5 in 4 sets, 2 in TB)
R6 Kiefer (who came from the Hewitt quarter)
R7 Baghdatis (who had beaten - seed 7 Ljubicic in 5 sets, and Nalbandian seeded 4 in 5 sets)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/draws/2006_MS_1.html

LOL, look at this murder's row Roger had to get through to win the Australian Open, they give you a grandslam trophy for beating these guys? I am sure this is a much tougher draw than having Nadal and Novak waiting for you at the semis and finals.

And yes Julius, I know Safin did beat Novak, Andy did reach a final of wimby. Again I don't think any objective observer can look at the titles and rankings of the players that dominated the early 2000s in their teens and early 20s and say that they performed anywhere up to their potential or had the same type of success just a couple of years later, when they were still at their physical primes

socal1976 wrote:Again I don't think any objective observer can look at the titles and rankings of the players that dominated the early 2000s in their teens and early 20s and say that they performed anywhere up to their potential or had the same type of success just a couple of years later, when they were still at their physical primes

By your definition, such an observer has already been labelled 'subjective' by you, so it makes no difference what the observations are or have been.

You generalise very easily, socal. Davydenko has never been to a slam final. What do you think of him as a player?

You are calling Nadal and Djokovic hard to beat, but make a mental list of their respective loses in the last 12 months and post it back here.

socal1976 wrote:Andy did reach a final of wimby.

Roddick has three finals at W, 2004, 2005, 2009.

Murray has none.

Fair enough laverfan. However, the only yardstick in judging Roddick and Murray is Roger Federer. Now by my rough estimation Murray has a better head-to-head record against Federer than Roddick, I am certain Murray has won more Masters Cups than Roddick, I'd hazard a guess that Murray has around the same title wins as Roddick despite the age difference and the only area Roddick surpasses Murray is on slam titles so does that one start alone quantify him as the better player? I'll leave you to decide. It is akin to saying Joe Johnson was a better snooker player than Jimmy White on the strength of him winning a world title to White having won none.

socal1976 wrote:

laverfan wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:
I don't care what surface it's on, irrelevant of Feds form and or if he's playing in planet mars where the conditions are slow/rapid/bouncy; that's a tough challenge. Now compare that to who he had to beat in AO 2006 for example, the latter stages were much easier for fed.

R1 Istomin (who played the final of SAP Open in 2012)
R2 Florian Mayer (who beat Nadal in Shanghai 2011)
R3 Max Mirnyi (beat Phillippoussis, Blake and Bjorkman at W 2006)
R4 Tommy Haas (who almost beat Federer at RG 2009, in 5 sets)
R5 Davydenko (seeded 5 in 4 sets, 2 in TB)
R6 Kiefer (who came from the Hewitt quarter)
R7 Baghdatis (who had beaten - seed 7 Ljubicic in 5 sets, and Nalbandian seeded 4 in 5 sets)

http://www.australianopen.com/en_AU/event_guide/history/draws/2006_MS_1.html

LOL, look at this murder's row Roger had to get through to win the Australian Open, they give you a grandslam trophy for beating these guys? I am sure this is a much tougher draw than having Nadal and Novak waiting for you at the semis and finals.

Exactly. Nadal would have probably been stopped by Florian and if not certainly by Davydenko in the the 1/4F. Anyway, he lost v injured Hewitt I believe or was he smashed by Gonzo?....after almost losing to young Murray?

The nature of any GS is that it is a discrete 2 week tournament. What has happened before or what comes after is, at the end of the day (can't believe I used such a hackeneyed cliche) irrelevant.
It's about the last man standing at the end and only about that.
If the world No 1 loses in the first round to a wildcard and the world No 2 loses to a qualifier, and the world No 3, who has a losing H2H against the Nos 1 and 2, wins the tournament by only having to play opponents outside the top 20 - that is just as valid a win as any other, because that is excactly the nature of GS tennis, or any knock-out tournament tennis.

Was it easier - maybe, depending on how players performed on the day, or was it harder - maybe, depending on how players performed on the day. But it is just as valid and worth just the same.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Fair enough laverfan. However, the only yardstick in judging Roddick and Murray is Roger Federer.

I dislike the idea of using a player as a yardstick to measure another player.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Now by my rough estimation Murray has a better head-to-head record against Federer than Roddick

8-7 Murray vs Federer

2-20 Roddick vs Federer

Let me point out the fallacies of h2h. Just look at Federer, Davydenko, Nadal and you will see what I am implying.

Berdych vs Federer, Tsonga vs Federer, Soderling vs Federer but they won an important match against Federer.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I am certain Murray has won more Masters Cups than Roddick

Murray has 8 MS, IIRC, while Roddick has 5.

CaledonianCraig wrote:I'd hazard a guess that Murray has around the same title wins as Roddick despite the age difference

Murray 22 titles , 10 finals.

Roddick 30 Titles, 20 finals.

CaledonianCraig wrote:the only area Roddick surpasses Murray is on slam titles so does that one start alone quantify him as the better player?

Murray has the best Tennis brain in the current Top 4, if I may say so, subjectively, of course. Even better than Federer.

Despite Roddick's exho win (7-5, 7-6) in New York Madison Square, between 2005-2009 he could have been a better player, but that is a missed opportunity he still rues. Stefanki brought some respectability in 2008-2011.

CaledonianCraig wrote: I'll leave you to decide. It is akin to saying Joe Johnson was a better snooker player than Jimmy White on the strength of him winning a world title to White having won none.

My apologies, I have no clue about Snooker, so your effort may be wasted on someone like me. If you follow Cricket, it may help me understand better.

I have no desire to make one player better than another. The number of titles, trophies, seem to become a counter to measure greatness, but the essence of the Tennis player is lost.

People focus on Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, but here is something for you to ponder. If you took the list of slam winners by each slam and looked for distinct winners, they would roughly be the same. (I will do it post it here, If I can compile that list).