Djokovic makes controversial statement about today's era

First topic message reminder :

Q. Often in a rivalry there’s a chaser. Andy has had that role in your rivalry. Do you feel that he’s still the chaser or do you think he’s evened up now?
NOVAK DJOKOVIC: Well, as I said, I think we split three wins both this year. So, yeah, I won in Australia, he won in US Open, he won in Olympic Games. I mean, we get to play these big matches and we put up a show for people. It’s exciting to be part of such an extraordinary rivalry, extraordinary matches, especially with somebody that you grew up with and you know for a long time.

I can’t really say who is the chaser. I think we both focus on our careers individually and we both try to improve each day. His example is the right example of how an athlete seeks to improve always and to get better.

This is great. It’s great for the sport. I think we’re experiencing maybe the best era of all times.

http://www.tennis-x.com/xblog/2012-10-15/10831.php


Reactions to this comment. Interesting it seems that Djokovic agrees with many others like Mcenroe who have pumped up the quality of the current era of players. Conversly, it could be said that retired players aren't going to talk down the young guys but the legends many of them seem to go out o their way to talk up the level of competition today. Djokovic though goes the extra mile and says "maybe the best era of all times." I tend to rate the late 80s and early 90s as the strongest period, however the current guys are certainly in with a shout.

CAS wrote:I personally think its incredible that at age 28 and 22 Murray had 6-2 advantage over Federer, considering their ages at this point you would think this was only going one way, 3 years later Federer took it to 8-8 with the Wimbledon win.

You said yourself that Federer is less consistent now, considering this is one thing Federer needs most of all against Murray I think he would have done much better against him 6/7 years ago and perhaps their head 2 head would look great for the Swiss.

One other aspect is they have never played on clay, which you would surely edge Federer in no? All what ifs though of course

And since Murray has edged back ahead again but that proves that Fed is still capable of playing at his best and if not then very close to it still.

Yes Roger is less consistent now - wherein he can throw in inconsistent performances. However, remember each pro has spells like this I mean we could point to Djoko's early part of his career when fitness issues hindered him, Murray's self belief as serve issues have been his achilles heel at times and injury at times has hindered Rafael Nadal yet still they can boast a better record against Roger than any of th 'big boys' of class 2002 by some distance as well.

Yes it would be interesting to see them play on clay. On past evidence of the two Roger wins but I somehow feel we have yet to see the best of Murray on the surface yet. I would take Roger to win for now though.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Correct ItMustBeLove. Yet BB persists with the pretence that in some way that the early 2000's was was superior or on a par to the here and now. Federer is the constant in these two eras and it is clear which set have players have caused him the most problems. Also look at his spread of slam wins and that backs this theory up. Henman's admittance that Murray was better than he was (both achieved a similar ranking) is more evidence, Djokovic is also adding his weight to this theory as well as are other ex-pros and pundits. Now I want to hear the evidence why the early 2000's should be seen as superior to the here and now with some facts thrown in.

CC: I have got the feeling you might have been in the past more keen on other sport rather than a big tennis fan. Now can you confirm you were following tennis with the same interest as you do now in early 2000?

This is the top 15 ranking in early 2000: does this look that weak??

1 Agassi, Andre (USA) 4,135 0 17
2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 2,915 0 30
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 2,419 0 13
4 Kiefer, Nicolas (GER) 2,184 0 22
5 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) 2,116 0 23
6 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) 2,107 0 26
7 Lapentti, Nicolas (ECU) 1,975 0 24
8 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 1,846 0 18
9 Martin, Todd (USA) 1,753 0 17
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,717 0 20
11 Norman, Magnus (SWE) 1,655 0 28
12 Haas, Tommy (GER) 1,510 0 23
13 Henman, Tim (GBR) 1,507 0 25
14 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 1,498 0 21
15 Pioline, Cedric (FRA)

JuliusHMarx wrote:Federer only won 1 slam in the early 2000s.

My general point being that the majority of his slam wins came prior to the maturing of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic in around 2007/2008. All the evidence is there in head-to-heads he had against top players of 2002 and top players of here and now (using only results from pre-2008) even though Murray, Djoko and Nadal hadn't peaked and the class of 2002 met Fed before he stamped his authority on the sport.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Correct ItMustBeLove. Yet BB persists with the pretence that in some way that the early 2000's was was superior or on a par to the here and now. Federer is the constant in these two eras and it is clear which set have players have caused him the most problems. Also look at his spread of slam wins and that backs this theory up. Henman's admittance that Murray was better than he was (both achieved a similar ranking) is more evidence, Djokovic is also adding his weight to this theory as well as are other ex-pros and pundits. Now I want to hear the evidence why the early 2000's should be seen as superior to the here and now with some facts thrown in.

CC: I have got the feeling you might have been in the past more keen on other sport rather than a big tennis fan. Now can you confirm you were following tennis with the same interest as you do now in early 2000?

This is the top 15 ranking in early 2000: does this look that weak??

1 Agassi, Andre (USA) 4,135 0 17
2 Kafelnikov, Yevgeny (RUS) 2,915 0 30
3 Sampras, Pete (USA) 2,419 0 13
4 Kiefer, Nicolas (GER) 2,184 0 22
5 Kuerten, Gustavo (BRA) 2,116 0 23
6 Enqvist, Thomas (SWE) 2,107 0 26
7 Lapentti, Nicolas (ECU) 1,975 0 24
8 Rios, Marcelo (CHI) 1,846 0 18
9 Martin, Todd (USA) 1,753 0 17
10 Krajicek, Richard (NED) 1,717 0 20
11 Norman, Magnus (SWE) 1,655 0 28
12 Haas, Tommy (GER) 1,510 0 23
13 Henman, Tim (GBR) 1,507 0 25
14 Rusedski, Greg (GBR) 1,498 0 21
15 Pioline, Cedric (FRA)

No it doesn't look weak and where did I ever say it was? Post up the class of 2002 and that is where you see a difference. Now how would you explain away the yawning difference that top players in 2002 records against Federer comparing the players of today against him?

For example here:

"then surely that is an indication itself in the early 2000's that the quality wasn't quite as high as we have nowadays."

The point is: the whole thread keep repeating the same point from post n.1.
Happy anyway you have changed your pov meantime.

No more of clarifying a point that is all. I have supplied hard evidence to back my stance up but am waiting for the reverse. Anyways I am done with this conversation for now as people know where I stand. Jeez is it now a shootable offence to reckon top players from around 2002 are not in the same class as the class of 2012?

CaledonianCraig wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Correct ItMustBeLove. Yet BB persists with the pretence that in some way that the early 2000's was was superior or on a par to the here and now. Federer is the constant in these two eras and it is clear which set have players have caused him the most problems. Also look at his spread of slam wins and that backs this theory up. Henman's admittance that Murray was better than he was (both achieved a similar ranking) is more evidence, Djokovic is also adding his weight to this theory as well as are other ex-pros and pundits. Now I want to hear the evidence why the early 2000's should be seen as superior to the here and now with some facts thrown in.

A baffling leap of imagination. Since my position is that all this era stuff is garbage I'd hardly be lobbying for superiority.

Please help me understand where you pulled this from with some links, if possible.

Well I suggest perhaps you shouldn't be debating the point so much if you hold no opinion on it. Seems an odd thing to do and leads me to believe you do have an opinion on it. As I said I have put my opinion across on the subject backed up with stats and facts and ex-pro opinion. If anyone (excluding you BB if you hold no opinion either way) can come up with similar facts and stats to back up why players from circa 2002 (for Jeremy's benefit)are more accomplished/better players than the current top players then I'll talk further on the subject.

bogbrush wrote:
A baffling leap of imagination. Since my position is that all this era stuff is garbage I'd hardly be lobbying for superiority.

Please help me understand where you pulled this from with some links, if possible.

Really Bogbrush? Really? You've never mentioned how the current top 20 lacked in strength in depth? Never mentioned Juan Monaco breaking into the top 10? Never mentioned David Ferrer holding onto his number 5 spot? What about this?:
https://www.606v2.com/t32885-to-the-last-remaining-golden-era-adherents

As tennis moves on, there will always be different generations coming through, and they will always have different strong and weak points (some arguable stronger than others in certain aspects). You can say 'I was only countering Socal in my posts' but the whole point is you did counter, you did do some analysis. Actually I think I am right in saying you made some correct analysis highlighting some of the weaker aspects of this generation, so I will give you due credit for that.

Funnily enough last year I was arguing with someone on whether a time period can be better in some aspects than another era. I think I was arguing with ROTLA or Lucius, but I'm not sure. Anyway one day he/she argued that it wasn't possible to do this analysis, then a few days later I asked him/her whether competition at the top was stronger in the mid 80's or mid 70's. The reply was a detailed analysis on why the mid-80's had stronger competition. Then I asked: 'Did you just not analyse these two different time periods? You said earlier that we can't do this analysis, did you change your mind?' Still haven't got a reply.

I believe on the whole if we look at a particular generation, we can analyse many aspects, but generally we can break it up into 3 aspects to analyse.
In this model, we must freeze time (it has to be a static model). It is actually very difficult to put a specific time period on anything, as tennis is always moving, always progressing.
1/ Strength in depth in top 50/100:
This is very difficult to judge, as you have to watch a lot of tennis to analyse this (outside the slams). Do they have variety? Do some of them have big weapons? Are they consistent?
Anyway, I believe I don't think this aspect actually makes a difference at all to the competitiveness at the top of the game, i.e. difficulty to win a slam. When someone like Djokovic looks at the draw the top 50-100 wouldn't be his biggest concern. Rosol was an exception I'm afraid, not the norm.
2/ Potential youngsters coming up, who are not yet world class:
There could be 10 under 19's in the top 200 etc. but I don't think at that particular point in time it's a worry for the big guns. Only later on, arguably when tennis moves on to another generation, will that be a worry. What happens if the young player is already world class when he is young (i.e. Becker, Nadal)? We look to point number 3.
3/ Number of world class players challenging for trophies at a particular point in time:
This I think is where Grand Slams are won and lost, the real important aspect for the top players in a certain generation. Whether the players are young or old doesn't make a big difference at that particular point in time, but later on obviously in the next generation the young players will still be present.
Common sense dictates that more world class players at a particular point in time makes the job of reaching a slam final that much harder. Thus I think this is the most important aspect, in terms of difficult of reaching a slam final/ winning a slam.

Conversely however this thesis could be floored by this counter argument:
We compare the top 10 of December 1995 and December 2005. Person C may say this: The whole top 10 of December 1995 was in my eyes 'world class', while none of the players in the top 10 of 2005 was world class.' Thus according to Person C's analysis: Federer is not the greatest of all time.
This is where people who have knowledge of tennis can come in, and make their points, and arguably each person's view can be both subjective and objective in the eyes of others.

As for the comparison between the two different generations during the naughties (as I said tennis is fluid, always moving, and hence it is difficult to put a time period on anything):

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:Before 2008 Federer had only lost one match combined in matches with Roddick, Soderling, Blake, Davydenko and Karlovic

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

That's right Craig, this ISN'T a Golden Era.

But I'm not saying it's weak either.

And trying to turn it into a Federer argument is beyond lame; can't you get past turning everything into a fanboy argument and just stick with the words that are used and the issues raised?

I mention having Juan the Weaponless in the Top 10 simply to mock the idea that we have this Golden Era, not to say it's a bad period.

For the 427th time.

Sorry but where have I turned this into a fanboy argument? I have put across my points on why I think a particular time in our sport wasn't at the same level as it is now and backed that up with my evidence.I am still waiting for those with the belief of class 2002 was superior to counter my points. That is all - no more no less.

bogbrush wrote:That's right Craig, this ISN'T a Golden Era.

But I'm not saying it's weak either.

And trying to turn it into a Federer argument is beyond lame; can't you get past turning everything into a fanboy argument and just stick with the words that are used and the issues raised?

I mention having Juan the Weaponless in the Top 10 simply to mock the idea that we have this Golden Era, not to say it's a bad period.

For the 427th time.

lol Bogbrush, not sure whether you've read the post very carefully. I know you've said before you don't like reading longer posts, perhaps that was the case here.

Firstly I wrote that post at 11:30 am, not Craig. Not sure whether you're aware of that.

Secondly what you are saying is hypocritical. You are saying you raised the point about Monaco to debunk the idea this is a 'golden' era. Fair enough. Personally I don't like labelling eras anyway, so you can't accuse me of labelling.
Anyway back to the point, you talked about Monaco to say that:
He is not a great player (well you called him weapon-less), but yet he is currently in the top 10, hence to get into the top 10 is not that difficult, which means that this is not a 'golden era.'
This point itself is an 'era' argument, and I agree with you to an extent that I don't really rate Juan Monaco.
But clearly you've raised a good point on why this aspect of the current top 10 is not so strong, whether you were trying to counter Socal's point or not.
Just like you used Monaco to analyse an aspect of the current generation, everyone else is allowed to also analyse aspects of other generations, correct?

Thirdly I'm not really turning this into a Federer argument, once again not sure you read this thing in detail. I was analysing how we could compare two different generations using youngsters, world class players, and strength in depth. This model could be used across any time period, not just this decade.
The Federer line which I put in bold, if you read carefully, was not me saying I think Roger is not the greatest of all time but I was suggesting someone (Person C) may say this:

Person C may say this: The whole top 10 of December 1995 was in my eyes 'world class', while none of the players in the top 10 of 2005 was world class.' Thus according to Person C's analysis: Federer is not the greatest of all time.

According to that even Nadal, as well as Federer, is not top 10 greatest players of all time; so I certainly don't agree with it (I can assure you of that!). My point is though, Person C could be correct. We can't know for sure, we can't actually fundamentally prove him wrong, can we?

It Must Be Love wrote:....Person C could be correct. We can't know for sure, we can't actually fundamentally prove him wrong, can we?

Which is pretty much what Redharry was saying. Comparisons between eras will always be subjective, even when most people agree.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:....Person C could be correct. We can't know for sure, we can't actually fundamentally prove him wrong, can we?

Which is pretty much what Redharry was saying. Comparisons between eras will always be subjective, even when most people agree.

Yep, JHM, that's right.
However if you have watched a lot of tennis, and can analyse, then we can still have a debate about it. Although you can never prove anything 100%, you do get stats like these which can indicate something:

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

Anyway that's all I'm saying for now, let's see if someone counters my post at 11:03 and then we'll go forward.

It was a long post, but I think you're saying Nadal has had it a lot easier on clay, in terms of serious FO challengers, than previous FO champions - have I got that right?

JuliusHMarx wrote:It was a long post, but I think you're saying Nadal has had it a lot easier on clay, in terms of serious FO challengers, than previous FO champions - have I got that right?

No, I can't remember saying that

Anyway rather than misquoting me, perhaps you can quote me next time to avoid such confusions in future. (or maybe stating something you believe and pretending I said it as you did here).

On your theory, if you want to believe that, it's fine. Certainly I consider Roger Federer in the top few greatest of all time on all surfaces, and he has never even extended Nadal to 5 sets in their many meetings in FO. Nadal's other nemesis Djokovic, has also been beaten by Nadal every time they have played in RG. Even good old Soderling has a losing record (1-2 IIRC) against Nadal in FO!

Anyway I could be wrong, compared to Guillermo Vilas Federer could be sh!t, Nadal could be sh!t, so there you go.

I didn't state anything, or give a theory - I asked a question for clarification.

lol, who are you trying to fool here Julius?
I think it was clear I never even mentioned the words 'French Open' so it was pretty clear from that start I had not said anything like that.

It Must Be Love wrote:lol, who are you trying to fool here Julius?

Everyone. All the time.

IMBL, apologies, I thought that was Craig. I realise how deeply offended you must be to think your posts could be confused with craig's so I abase myself and beg forgiveness. (Craig; only joking )

Secondly, you're right about the "Person C" thing; I think this was what redharry was saying the other day when he made the newbie error of trying to convince socal of something. Has redharry been seen since?

All I'm saying about Juan the Weaponless is just that while a hitting partner like him makes it into the top 10 I'm just refusing to wet myself over this period; no way can I believe there are only 9 better players on the planet.
It doesn't make now bad, in fact it's very reminiscent of previous times when equally unimpressive players appeared in the upper reaches.
It's just that some posters alight on those examples in 2000-3 and scream like Donald Sutherland at the end of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" remake.

bogbrush wrote:IMBL, apologies, I thought that was Craig. I realise how deeply offended you must be to think your posts could be confused with craig's so I abase myself and beg forgiveness. (Craig; only joking )

lol, no worries BB

bogbrush wrote:
Secondly, you're right about the "Person C" thing; I think this was what redharry was saying the other day when he made the newbie error of trying to convince socal of something. Has redharry been seen since?

Well I have a feeling Socal will agree with what I've had to say (at 11:30am). Let's see if he says any different.

bogbrush wrote:
All I'm saying about Juan the Weaponless is just that while a hitting partner like him makes it into the top 10 I'm just refusing to wet myself over this period; no way can I believe there are only 9 better players on the planet.
It doesn't make now bad, in fact it's very reminiscent of previous times when equally unimpressive players appeared in the upper reaches.
It's just that some posters alight on those examples in 2000-3 and scream like Donald Sutherland at the end of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" remake.

Well I agree that I don't really rate Juan Monaco.
And I don't think we should wet ourselves over a tennis era, that would be a bit worrying
What I am saying though, is although we can't prove anything, we can objectively base an opinion on stats, logic, and experience.
For example I can say I am sure at one particular point in time (let's say 1985) there were 'x' players playing who were world class and challenging for trophies, while at another particular point in time (let's say 1995) there were 'y' players who were world class and challenging for trophies. If x>y then for me, then in that particular year (1985) it may have been harder to win major trophies, i.e. more competitive.
But for this, you need to take a leap using logic, and your experience of the matter. For example Juan Monaco you say is 'weapon-less' but as far as we know he could be better than Borg despite having worse stats. But you just have to assume that Borg is better based on your objective knowledge.
Then when we have a debate between two sides, the side which has the most logic and relevant evidence backing up their point, is the one we have to accept, despite the fact no one can prove they are right.

On this matter for example both me and Caldedonian Craig have argued that Federer's toughest competition came from the Murray, Djokovic, Nadal tripoly, rather than the older generation (who were his age).
I provide these stats which are from the same time period (2003-2008), so you can't argue that one set of players had an advantage, timing wise.
This was the evidence I presented:

In the period 2003-2008:
He had lost 5 matches combined against Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt.
He had lost 18 matches combined against Nadal, Djokovic and Murray.

BB I do fully agree that every era has a player that makes the top ten that may not be rated as a great and who comes up short when playing the big guns. I made the exact same point in the Haas thread. What my point more of is that in the here and now we have a GOAT, a clay court GOAT,a multiple slam winner and two other slam winners almost in top ten whereas in the 2002 top ten it can't much up to that overall calibre. That is not too controversial now is it?

CAS wrote:I understand Murray and Djokovic fans frustration, the golden era argument was going so well. They were beating the man considered the best ever, yet achievements wise they paled in comparison. So maybe it was because he had easier competition?

Then Federer had to go and win Wimbledon and become World Number at 31 during their peak years and blow the whole thing wide open

Roger Federer deserves a lot of credit for bringing us out of the dark age of the hewitt and Roddick's of the world. If anything he has been the flagship of this period, although Nadal has won more slams in the 2007-2012 period I believe, I think it is close either way. The fact that the greatest player of all time was 27 years old when this period started adds weight to our arguments it does not diminish them. By the way Agassi won the australian open at 33 years old and reached world #1 in 2003, is Roger less of a player than Agassi?

CaledonianCraig wrote:BB I do fully agree that every era has a player that makes the top ten that may not be rated as a great and who comes up short when playing the big guns. I made the exact same point in the Haas thread. What my point more of is that in the here and now we have a GOAT, a clay court GOAT,a multiple slam winner and two other slam winners almost in top ten whereas in the 2002 top ten it can't much up to that overall calibre. That is not too controversial now is it?

Of course Craig it is easy to see that there is a certain online critic syndrome that some posters are falling prey to. The perfect illustration is that in an era with a still strong GOAT, the all time clay GOAT, another all time great in Djoko, and two relatively young slam champs that could end up as all time greats in Del Po and Murray and all these critics want to talk about is Haas and Ferrer. Frankly you are doing a yeoman's job of attempting to logically dissect illogical and emotion based arguments. I have wasted countless hours on that thankless task myself. You have to resign yourself that certain people want to not like what they watch and be critical for whatever reason they have, and nothing will change their position. Especially if they have some agenda or some emotional attachment in the argument.

Socal, you agree with my analysis @ 11:30?

I do agree that looking at the current top ten and picking out Monaco and Ferrer is negative thinking.
This is the current top 8 in the ATP race this year:
Djokovic
Federer
Murray
Nadal
Ferrer
Berdych
Del Potro
Tsonga

Is that the strongest top 8 in history? As I said, although nothing can be proven, I think it is.

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, you agree with my analysis @ 11:30?

I do agree that looking at the current top ten and picking out Monaco and Ferrer is negative thinking.
This is the current top 8 in the ATP race this year:
Djokovic
Federer
Murray
Nadal
Ferrer
Berdych
Del Potro
Tsonga

Is that the strongest top 8 in history? As I said, although nothing can be proven, I think it is.

Please accept my apologies IMBL, I agree with your astute analysis so often that I sometimes take your points for granted. Of course that is a very strong top 8. Every generation has a scrappy guy who wins more than his talent would indicated they should win I think Ferrer falls into that category the battler who hits harder than his weight. Either way that is a pretty lethal top 8. But to be fair we should put the respective ages as a qualifier that will quell some of the Roger is old arguments that will be made. Tsonga I think is an exceptional if not up and down talent, Del Po is goingto get better and so is Murray and Djoko. Nadal is the X factor of how good he will be when he comes back from injury. I think he will still be in the very elite of the game competing for slams and the number 1. Then this top 8 looks very primed and strong.

socal1976 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Socal, you agree with my analysis @ 11:30?

I do agree that looking at the current top ten and picking out Monaco and Ferrer is negative thinking.
This is the current top 8 in the ATP race this year:
Djokovic
Federer
Murray
Nadal
Ferrer
Berdych
Del Potro
Tsonga

Is that the strongest top 8 in history? As I said, although nothing can be proven, I think it is.

Please accept my apologies IMBL, I agree with your astute analysis so often that I sometimes take your points for granted. Of course that is a very strong top 8. Every generation has a scrappy guy who wins more than his talent would indicated they should win I think Ferrer falls into that category the battler who hits harder than his weight. Either way that is a pretty lethal top 8. But to be fair we should put the respective ages as a qualifier that will quell some of the Roger is old arguments that will be made. Tsonga I think is an exceptional if not up and down talent, Del Po is goingto get better and so is Murray and Djoko. Nadal is the X factor of how good he will be when he comes back from injury. I think he will still be in the very elite of the game competing for slams and the number 1. Then this top 8 looks very primed and strong.

Kl kl no worries Socal
Have just set up a thread discussing this, personally in my opinion this could be the strongest top 8 in history.

Julius could you please keep this guy from lying about my positions. Either he produces evidence that I stated that Foggy withdrew ON PURPOSE TO stymie Djokovic or he retracts the statement and gets disciplined for another lie and smear.

No, Socal never actually claimed Fognini withdrew just to stop Djokovic (he did once hint if Fognini had the heart he could have played- but never suggested there was a conspiracy).
Socal's point was that due to Fognini's withdrawal there was a gap in play which could have negatively affected Djokovic.
Personally I don't agree with Socal, as I believe the positives (stay fresh) outweigh the negatives, but let's not misquote him.

Anyway if you are labelling the charge of defending their player with an attachment etc. you should label that at me, not Socal. I probably defend Nadal more than Socal defends Djokovic. Socal is more balanced on that front.

Thanks IMBL, I appreciate the vote of support. I have nothing more to say on the subject till the authorities have time to investigate the conduct in question.

It Must Be Love wrote:No, Socal never actually claimed Fognini withdrew just to stop Djokovic (he did once hint if Fognini had the heart he could have played- but never suggested there was a conspiracy).
Socal's point was that due to Fognini's withdrawal there was a gap in play which could have negatively affected Djokovic.
Personally I don't agree with Socal, as I believe the positives (stay fresh) outweigh the negatives, but let's not misquote him.

Anyway if you are labelling the charge of defending their player with an attachment etc. you should label that at me, not Socal. I probably defend Nadal more than Socal defends Djokovic. Socal is more balanced on that front.

Can we still dig posts out from 2011?

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:No, Socal never actually claimed Fognini withdrew just to stop Djokovic (he did once hint if Fognini had the heart he could have played- but never suggested there was a conspiracy).
Socal's point was that due to Fognini's withdrawal there was a gap in play which could have negatively affected Djokovic.
Personally I don't agree with Socal, as I believe the positives (stay fresh) outweigh the negatives, but let's not misquote him.

Anyway if you are labelling the charge of defending their player with an attachment etc. you should label that at me, not Socal. I probably defend Nadal more than Socal defends Djokovic. Socal is more balanced on that front.

Can we still dig posts out from 2011?

Go on then.
The most Socal said was that he thought Fognini lacked heart, and he mistakenly thought Fognini had played 2 weeks later in a grass 250. I can't remember him actually mentioning a conspiracy, but if you have a quote, show it.
If not, then you can apologise

Actually that was a question.

Whatever the answer, I'm fed up with this stupid squabble. Socal didn't say Fognini deliberately withdrew to stuff Djokovic, of course he didn't. He did go on about to a ridiculous extent and when you do that you do risk being mocked for it, but he I'd not actually straight out accuse Fognini of doing it to do him down.

bogbrush wrote:Actually that was a question.

Whatever the answer, I'm fed up with this stupid squabble. Socal didn't say Fognini deliberately withdrew to stuff Djokovic, of course he didn't. He did go on about to a ridiculous extent and when you do that you do risk being mocked for it, but he I'd not actually straight out accuse Fognini of doing it to do him down.

So you made up that position full well knowing I never said it, now you get caught doing it and your response is that you made it up but I had it coming. Is this really a retraction and/or an apology Julius when you misbehave, would this type of retraction make any reasonable aggrieved party satisfied.

BB, have you read my PM?

JuliusHMarx wrote:BB, have you read my PM?

Yeah.

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Actually that was a question.

Whatever the answer, I'm fed up with this stupid squabble. Socal didn't say Fognini deliberately withdrew to stuff Djokovic, of course he didn't. He did go on about to a ridiculous extent and when you do that you do risk being mocked for it, but he I'd not actually straight out accuse Fognini of doing it to do him down.

So you made up that position full well knowing I never said it, now you get caught doing it and your response is that you made it up but I had it coming. Is this really a retraction and/or an apology Julius when you misbehave, would this type of retraction make any reasonable aggrieved party satisfied.

Oh settle down. Have I cried to the forum because you invaded my other thread and compared me to a Bush aide, implicated in finding fraudulent grounds to start wars?

bogbrush wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Actually that was a question.

Whatever the answer, I'm fed up with this stupid squabble. Socal didn't say Fognini deliberately withdrew to stuff Djokovic, of course he didn't. He did go on about to a ridiculous extent and when you do that you do risk being mocked for it, but he I'd not actually straight out accuse Fognini of doing it to do him down.

So you made up that position full well knowing I never said it, now you get caught doing it and your response is that you made it up but I had it coming. Is this really a retraction and/or an apology Julius when you misbehave, would this type of retraction make any reasonable aggrieved party satisfied.

Oh settle down. Have I cried to the forum because you invaded my other thread and compared me to a Bush aide, implicated in finding fraudulent grounds to start wars?

Well at least it has been established that you are known liar.

Thank you.

bogbrush wrote:Actually that was a question.

Whatever the answer, I'm fed up with this stupid squabble. Socal didn't say Fognini deliberately withdrew to stuff Djokovic, of course he didn't. He did go on about to a ridiculous extent and when you do that you do risk being mocked for it, but he I'd not actually straight out accuse Fognini of doing it to do him down.

I pity u BB

It Must Be Love wrote:No, Socal never actually claimed Fognini withdrew just to stop Djokovic (he did once hint if Fognini had the heart he could have played- but never suggested there was a conspiracy).
Socal's point was that due to Fognini's withdrawal there was a gap in play which could have negatively affected Djokovic.
Personally I don't agree with Socal, as I believe the positives (stay fresh) outweigh the negatives, but let's not misquote him.

Anyway if you are labelling the charge of defending their player with an attachment etc. you should label that at me, not Socal. I probably defend Nadal more than Socal defends Djokovic. Socal is more balanced on that front.

can't control it.