Is this the strongest top 8 in history?

First topic message reminder :

Now I do realise that there are many different aspects when analysing a generation or 'era' of tennis.
Lydian has made some fantastic points in an article showing how there is a lack of youngsters currently in the top 100. While I agree with that analysis, I think it's time we also looked at the other side of the coin.
For me one of the most important aspects, if not the most important, is judging the quality right at the top of the game (how many world class players are present). It is, normally, where the Grand Slams are decided, between the top players.

The current top 8 according to the ATP Race for 2012 (the normal rankings also has the same 8 players):
ATP 2012 RACE:

Novak Djokovic- An all-time great arguably, who already has 5 Grand Slams and could go on to win many more.
Roger Federer- Holds most Grand Slams, not in his prime but playing great tennis nonetheless.
Andy Murray- Since he was young many believed he would win a slam, and now he has done that. Like Djoko he has time on his side to win even more.
Rafael Nadal- Already holds 11 Grand Slams, and has the most French Open titles. Suffered from injury in late 2012.
David Ferrer- I believe it's important to have one player like Ferrer in the top 10. Hard-working, consistent, and rock solid.
Tomas Berdych- He has a massive game and immense weapons, only his mentality lets him down at times. However he has shown at his best he can trouble anyone, having beaten Federer at Wimbledon and the US Open. Also has a winning record against Murray.
Juan Martin Del Potro- Sensationally beat both Federer and Nadal in the US Open in 2009. After that he has suffered injury problems, and now finally it appears he will end the year in the top 8 for the first time since 2009. A power player, who has devastating ground-strokes.
Jo Wilfred Tsonga- Like Berdych this guy has weapons, and on his day can be close to unbeatable. Also like Berdych, he is inconsistent, sometimes he plays brilliant, sometimes he plays poorly! He is always exciting to follow though, and has beaten both Nadal and Federer at Grand Slams. He was also one point away from beating Djokovic at RG this year, so at his best he is lethal.

Some examples of other top 8's:

25.09.2006:
Federer
Nadal
Ljubicic
Nalbandian
Davydenko
Roddick
Robredo
Baghdatis

09.12.1985:
Lendl
McEnroe
Wilander
Connors
Edberg
Becker
Y.Noah
Jarryd

As I recognise, these debates will always be subjective, as we can't prove whether a particular set of players is better than another across different time periods.
Feel free to discuss though, can you think of any other top 8 which was as good as this?

Amritia3ee

emancipator wrote:Yep those stats are definitely misleading.

Well stats themselves can't be misleading, interpretations of them can be.
If you think my interpretation of those stats were false, then fair enough.

emancipator wrote:
Until the OG this year Federer was 8-8 against Murray and until the start of 2011 he was 13-6 (iirc against Djokovic).

Yes that's correct.

emancipator wrote:
So really it's only Nadal that's had his number. Clearly in 2008, Fed's level dipped (likely secondary to his bout with mono) and of course the other guys also improved.

I think the fact that between 2003-2008 Murray had more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together show something.

IMBL apparently people are allowed to have opinions and agree with people, except when they agree with me. By the way I will forward you the agreed price for agreeing with me and complimenting for your last post, should I send the check to the same PO BOX number?

socal1976 wrote:Yes totally agree Craig. If anything I think it is disrespectful to Djokovic and Murray to claim that we can't rate them better than early 2000 guys. If objective accomplishments separate Roger from the field why are we not allowed to examine the trophy cases of other players and give them credit for it? I remember that post you made and it was spot on. All this talk about fed got old is just inaccurate and biased. At the end of 2007, when Roger was at his peak his closest rivals in the ranking they were Nadal and Djoko, and Murray had a great win percentage against Fed that far outstrips what his contemporaries were able to accomplish.

Exactly. The other argument that adds weight in there is Tim Henman himself admitting (on several occasions) that Murray is a superior player than he was and both players achieved a similar ranking. Some have come back and said that it is only Tim being a gentleman. Really? Well Andy's slam win to Tim's none now seems to back Tim up. Ask tennis pundits as well and we know who they'd say was the superior top four between now and 2004. Look at the slam count as well and the current top four out strips 2004 and going by what I was always told when Murray hadn't won a slam that slam wins were everything then using that addage 2012 beats 2004 for me.

socal1976 wrote:IMBL apparently people are allowed to have opinions and agree with people, except when they agree with me. By the way I will forward you the agreed price for agreeing with me and complimenting for your last post, should I send the check to the same PO BOX number?

lol

CaledonianCraig wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Yes totally agree Craig. If anything I think it is disrespectful to Djokovic and Murray to claim that we can't rate them better than early 2000 guys. If objective accomplishments separate Roger from the field why are we not allowed to examine the trophy cases of other players and give them credit for it? I remember that post you made and it was spot on. All this talk about fed got old is just inaccurate and biased. At the end of 2007, when Roger was at his peak his closest rivals in the ranking they were Nadal and Djoko, and Murray had a great win percentage against Fed that far outstrips what his contemporaries were able to accomplish.

Exactly. The other argument that adds weight in there is Tim Henman himself admitting (on several occasions) that Murray is a superior player than he was and both players achieved a similar ranking. Some have come back and said that it is only Tim being a gentleman. Really? Well Andy's slam win to Tim's none now seems to back Tim up. Ask tennis pundits as well and we know who they'd say was the superior top four between now and 2004. Look at the slam count as well and the current top four out strips 2004 and going by what I was always told when Murray hadn't won a slam that slam wins were everything then using that addage 2012 beats 2004 for me.

I agree Craig and most of this is actually quite disrespectful to the current guys. It is as if their accomplishments don't matter at all in order to distinguish them. But I think Craig if we are both being honest most, not all, but most of the emotional defense of the early 2000 guys comes from a segment of fed fans (mostly, not all) who need to prove that everything about federer is best. And if the era that fed dominated early didn't have a lot of good slam champions in their prime, they will just refuse to accept that criteria as being dispositive. I mean isn't it silly that so many people argue that objective numbers are irrelevant to assessing a player's standing? But when they claim that today's guys are no better than the Roddicks, Ferreros, Hewitts, and Nalbandians of the world that is exactly what they are saying.

I don't think saying that, for example, I rate Hewitt higher than Murray, is being disrespectful to Murray. It's just an opinion I have based on having watched both of them play and the various factors in their rise, and in Hewitt's case, decline.
I'd much rather Murray won stuff than Hewitt, but that's beside the point I think.
I think if I said 'no-shot Murray' that would be disrespectful.

It Must Be Love wrote:

emancipator wrote:Yep those stats are definitely misleading.

emancipator wrote:
So really it's only Nadal that's had his number. Clearly in 2008, Fed's level dipped (likely secondary to his bout with mono) and of course the other guys also improved.

I think the fact that between 2003-2008 Murray had more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together show something.

Wow, when you put it that way IMBL case closed. Spot on. Murray beat Roger more in his absloute prime as a teenager than Roddick, Blake, Davy, Karlo, Ljubi, Haas, Baggy, Gonzo and Hewitt put together during he same period. That is a very telling statistic. And if you look at the rankings at the height of Fed's glory at the end of 2007 his closest rivals points wise were Nadal and Djokovic, 20 and 19 respectively. At the end of 2007 if your life depended on it would you wager on Murray v. Federer, or Roddick v. Federer? One guy was a teenager far from his prime, the other guy Roddick had years of top flight experience and was at his physical peak.

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think saying that, for example, I rate Hewitt higher than Murray, is being disrespectful to Murray. It's just an opinion I have based on having watched both of them play and the various factors in their rise, and in Hewitt's case, decline.
I'd much rather Murray won stuff than Hewitt, but that's beside the point I think.
I think if I said 'no-shot Murray' that would be disrespectful.

I take it as a major disrespect to Djoko and Murray to claim that the only reason they won more is because Roger got old, and that nothing separates Djoko lets say from fat DAve or hewitt. I don't take it as a compliment and Murray fans don't like it either. It is meant as a slight, how else would we take it?

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:I don't think saying that, for example, I rate Hewitt higher than Murray, is being disrespectful to Murray. It's just an opinion I have based on having watched both of them play and the various factors in their rise, and in Hewitt's case, decline.
I'd much rather Murray won stuff than Hewitt, but that's beside the point I think.
I think if I said 'no-shot Murray' that would be disrespectful.

I take it as a major disrespect to Djoko and Murray to claim that the only reason they won more is because Roger got old, and that nothing separates Djoko lets say from fat DAve or hewitt. I don't take it as a compliment and Murray fans don't like it either. It is meant as a slight, how else would we take it?

None of what you said seems to relate to anything I said.

That No Shot Hewitt really sticks in your craw doesn't it Julius? Well I have to say again that like all great artists I was being a bit poetic with my license there. Hewitt actually is a great returner, that was his big weapon. But somehow one shot Andy, and no shot Lleyton sounds better when used in a sentence. I agree that statement I made is unfair to hewitt.

If I say you're not a great artist, would you consider that to be poetic license on my part?

Hewitt greater than Murray? Let's wait for Murray to finish his career first.

Unfortunately illness and injury didn't really allow Hewitt to finish his career at his previous level, so Murray will presumably have more longevity.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Unfortunately illness and injury didn't really allow Hewitt to finish his career at his previous level, so Murray will presumably have more longevity.

Yes.

Craig, you always overlook the part where Federer starts losing to all sorts from 2008 onwards. It isn't all bout Murray & Djokovic, there are other comparators to chart Feds slippage, some being players from a few years back.

Bogbrush between 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Unfortunately illness and injury didn't really allow Hewitt to finish his career at his previous level, so Murray will presumably have more longevity.

I rate murray as just a better player even prior to Hewitt's injury issues when he was at his best. Don't get me wrong I actually think Hewitt is an alltime great of the game but a soft #1. I think IMBL loves it by the way Julius when you make these what could have been arguments in relation to their injuries. Because in my mind Nadal is the greatest case of a player that could have been so much greater if not for terrible chronic leg problems. I don't think there is a tennis record he wouldn't own at this stage if not for his leg problems and I am Djokovic fan.

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush between 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together.

And without checking I suspect those same players did better from 2008-10 than they had from 2005-7. At least, they and a few other 'unnotables'.

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Federer reached his peak in years 2004 - 2007, when he played consistently a nearly flawless brand of tennis and produced the bulk of the stunning records he holds now. Afterwards he has never reached that level again. That's not surprising when considered that the peak years for a tennis player are in the range 22 to 27 yrs fo age, what is also called the prime period. That's common knowledge everywhere except probably here.

JK guess what you can never fight an idiot coz he/she take you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Jokers fans trying to imitate their hero by being a real time jokers, I guess it comes natural for some posters.

No, it's clear to me the guy is a talented comedian. The big mistake that some people on here make, and probably you amongst them, is to take everything he says seriously, which shouldn't really be the case.

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Federer reached his peak in years 2004 - 2007, when he played consistently a nearly flawless brand of tennis and produced the bulk of the stunning records he holds now. Afterwards he has never reached that level again. That's not surprising when considered that the peak years for a tennis player are in the range 22 to 27 yrs fo age, what is also called the prime period. That's common knowledge everywhere except probably here.

JK guess what you can never fight an idiot coz he/she take you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Jokers fans trying to imitate their hero by being a real time jokers, I guess it comes natural for some posters.

No, it's clear to me the guy is a talented comedian. The big mistake that some people on here make, and probably you amongst them, is to take everything he says seriously, which shouldn't really be the case.

Thanks JK, wow a talented comedian. What tipped you off my desire to defend grandpa's rights to boner medication or numerous references to my own inebriated state when posting?

By the way JK where and how should I send you payment for that compliment, apparently I am paying all the people who agree with me, defend me, or compliment me?

Jk you are right, I laughed my A__ out of those seriously portrayed jokes, its a bit like Djoko's mimic of sharapova and Nadal.

Also on another note IF Fed is past his best how comes this year he has notched up his most wins in a season since 2007 and the season hasnt finished yet. Also do we have to wait until Roger brings out his autobiography and confirms his toughest opponents come from the here and now rather than those from the 2004 school. Just to remind people on the original question I can think of other top tens that beat the current one in case I am accused of fanboyism again.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Also on another note IF Fed is past his best how comes this year he has notched up his most wins in a season since 2007 and the season hasnt finished yet. Also do we have to wait until Roger brings out his autobiography and confirms his toughest opponents come from the here and now rather than those from the 2004 school. Just to remind people on the original question I can think of other top tens that beat the current one in case I am accused of fanboyism again.

Weak year? Actually not so silly, only Murray has improved this year; Nadal is way down, Djokovic not as good, and Tsonga well down. Don't bother mentioning the #5, he's irrelevant. And this is where the absence of young talent really starts to bite!

His toughest opponent is Nadal. Not a period or a group. Just Rafa but I think you'll find Nalbandian gets a big mention.

Hmm Nalbandian - I wonder how many slams he has won? After all the brainwashers on forums have had me believe that if you haven't won a slam you aren't worth worrying about. Sorry Nalby has won no slams. Also in his head-to-heads he still holds a losing record against Fed - dare I say it compared to Murray. Of course Nalby will get a mention in such a book but will he be mentioned in the same glowing terms as others? I don't think so but if he does it will blow tennis forum posters theorems out of the water about winning a slam being the be all and end all of rating a tennis player.

Well I always find the trick is to watch the game and form my opinions based on that, not what someone else tells me the rules of thinking are.

I'm pretty certain Federer would have great respect or Nalbandian, one of the most talented players of the last 20 years.

bogbrush wrote:

I'm pretty certain Federer would have great respect or Nalbandian, one of the most talented players of the last 20 years.

That is not up for debate and it cannot be denied either about the level of respect he holds for Murray, Djokovic and Nadal which I'd say would be above that of non-slam winning Nalbandian. That is the point I am making.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

I'm pretty certain Federer would have great respect or Nalbandian, one of the most talented players of the last 20 years.

That is not up for debate and it cannot be denied either about the level of respect he holds for Murray, Djokovic and Nadal which I'd say would be above that of non-slam winning Nalbandian. That is the point I am making.

I'm sure he rates Nadal above Dave, and probably Djokovic but don't underestimate his appreciation of the talent of Nalbandian, one of very few players Nadal has ever believed can hit him off court. Murray isn't in the Nadal club yet.

invisiblecoolers wrote:Jk you are right, I laughed my A__ out of those seriously portrayed jokes, its a bit like Djoko's mimic of sharapova and Nadal.

When are you going to apologise for your appalling insults towards Socal yesterday??

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush between 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together.

And without checking I suspect those same players did better from 2008-10 than they had from 2005-7. At least, they and a few other 'unnotables'.

Well, as I've said before, Federer's fluctuations in form, whether they exist or not, is irrelevant.
I've used the same time period for both sets of players, so this variable is consistent for both Murray and the others.
Of course you can draw your own personal interpretation you want from this stat (that is quoted above).

bogbrush wrote:

His toughest opponent is Nadal. Not a period or a group.

Yes indeed, you're right on that.
And not just because Nadal matches up well to Federer (which he does), but because Nadal is a f*cking brilliant player.
On indoord hard Federer owns him though.

I agree with bogbrush that Nalbandian is very talented, and would be highly respected by many other world class players.
It's a shame he couldn't utilise is talent fully by troubling the best players on the biggest stage and winning a slam.
Maybe the mental aspect, i.e. he does not have the mentality of a champion, is what stopped him, who knows? That's for another thread though.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:Unfortunately illness and injury didn't really allow Hewitt to finish his career at his previous level, so Murray will presumably have more longevity.

I rate murray as just a better player even prior to Hewitt's injury issues when he was at his best. Don't get me wrong I actually think Hewitt is an alltime great of the game but a soft #1. I think IMBL loves it by the way Julius when you make these what could have been arguments in relation to their injuries.

Indeed, you know me well
Will leave the Rafa part of this for another day.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Bogbrush between 2003-2008 Murray ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together.

And without checking I suspect those same players did better from 2008-10 than they had from 2005-7. At least, they and a few other 'unnotables'.

Well, as I've said before, Federer's fluctuations in form, whether they exist or not, is irrelevant.
I've used the same time period for both sets of players, so this variable is consistent for both Murray and the others.
Of course you can draw your own personal interpretation you want from this stat (that is quoted above).

It's quite a misrepresentation in respect of Murray & Djokovic; the stat reflects Nadal, and mainly Nadal on clay. Hardly shocking.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
I've used the same time period for both sets of players, so this variable is consistent for both Murray and the others.
Of course you can draw your own personal interpretation you want from this stat (that is quoted above).

It's quite a misrepresentation in respect of Murray & Djokovic; the stat reflects Nadal, and mainly Nadal on clay. Hardly shocking.

Umm... not quite sure I 100% follow you there.
I was saying between 2003-2008 Murray himself ammased more wins against Federer than Roddick, Blake, Davydenko, Karlovic, Ljubicic, Haas, Gonzalez, Baghdatis, Hewitt put together.

Not quite sure where Djokovic, Nadal, or clay come into this.

Nalbandian was never in the same league as the top guys now. Great to watch when on song but massive weaknesses which meant that he was never going to be anything better than a top 10 player capable of the odd great tournament. Basically, a slightly less consistent version of Tsonga. Take Federer out of history, and Nalbandian still wouldn't be a slam champion.

There are so many stats invoked by everyone it's tough to keep up with which one is in use!

bogbrush wrote:There are so many stats invoked by everyone it's tough to keep up with which one is in use!

Well I did quote it above
Edit: Personally I feel that the stat says a lot, but of course everyone can interpret it differently.

Okay so if we look at both individuals here:-

Slam Wins:

Murray 1 Nalbandian 0

Slam Finals:

Murray 5 Nalbandian 1

ATP Title Wins:

Murray 24 Nalbandian 11

Head to Head Record:

Murray 5 Nalbandian 2

Comparative Record V Federer:

Federer 11 Nalbandian 8

Federer 8 Murray 10

Hmm is it open to debate who has the more impressive stats? And with those more impressive stats is it anything other than realistic to presume who is the more accomplished player and in addition be a more testing opponent.

Like I say, I use my eyes to tell me what I'm looking at. I suspect Federer has great regard for Nalbandians ability to hit a great ball.

Well I suggest you get your eyes checked if they are telling you Nalbandian is above Murray in any area. And like I said it is not up for debate that Fed respects Nalbandian but what exactly does that mean? Unless you are claiming Fed holds him in more esteem and fears playing him more than Murray?

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Jk you are right, I laughed my A__ out of those seriously portrayed jokes, its a bit like Djoko's mimic of sharapova and Nadal.

When are you going to apologise for your appalling insults towards Socal yesterday??

R u crazy? if he/she find my comments appalling he/she can report it to mods, if somebody have to apologize for rude and abusive comments its the person whom you mentioned have to do to several forum members including me

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Jk you are right, I laughed my A__ out of those seriously portrayed jokes, its a bit like Djoko's mimic of sharapova and Nadal.

When are you going to apologise for your appalling insults towards Socal yesterday??

R u crazy? if he/she find my comments appalling he/she can report it to mods, if somebody have to apologize for rude and abusive comments its the person whom you mentioned have to do to several forum members including me

So you're not going to apologise for your insults then? Not surprising I suppose.
Btw, for someone who insulted Socal by saying that he wasn't educated, your grammar is simply appalling.
It's not typos, those are understandable, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of which tense to use, or which form of the verb to use.
Are you crazy? If he/she finds my comments appalling he/she can report it to the mods, if somebody has to apologise for rude and abusive comments it's the person who you mentioned who has to do so to several forum members including me.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Okay so if we look at both individuals here:-

Slam Wins:

Murray 1 Nalbandian 0

Slam Finals:

Murray 5 Nalbandian 1

ATP Title Wins:

Murray 24 Nalbandian 11

Head to Head Record:

Murray 5 Nalbandian 2

Comparative Record V Federer:

Federer 11 Nalbandian 8

Federer 8 Murray 10

Hmm is it open to debate who has the more impressive stats? And with those more impressive stats is it anything other than realistic to presume who is the more accomplished player and in addition be a more testing opponent.

Well it clearly shows Murray is the most accomplished player and consistently miles better than Nalby, but it doesn't say one thing, can Murray's best trump Nalby's best? however 2 players very rarely play their best in a single given match and hence thats pretty irrelevant.

My view Nalby had a lot of talent and could win the game by his racket against any opponent when his head is focused on the game, Murray on the other hand in his early part of his career was so defensive and waited for opponents to lose or win matches he involved in, but saying that every year he improved and Ivan as is his coach got some aggressiveness on his mind with respect to game, and I see Andy destined for more glory in 2013.

Andy will go down in the history as a grand slam champion and that in an era where GOAT played, where as Nalby will be remember by few Tennis pundits for his lovely watchable game and as a guy who was more than capable of beating Fed/Nadal on their prime on any occasion.

Fed at times have taken Murray for granted and was capable of winning Murray on big occasions, that was never the same in case of Nalby, Fed i suspect not just had respect for Nalby's game but at times even feared his game, I never saw Fed giving up after going a set lead in his prime but on many occasions Nalby forced Fed to give up, yes Fed lost so many games from 2008 after going a set up lead, but thats not prime Fed we are talking about.

Well of course take a look at the head-to-head record for a start. Oh but of course that old excuse of age and injuries will be wheeled out to defend Nalby. There first meeting in 2005 at Wimbledon told us everything really. A teenage Murray as green as the grass was denied a win by his own lack of fitness against a young and fit Nalby as he led 2-0 in sets and lost in five.

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

invisiblecoolers wrote:Jk you are right, I laughed my A__ out of those seriously portrayed jokes, its a bit like Djoko's mimic of sharapova and Nadal.

When are you going to apologise for your appalling insults towards Socal yesterday??

R u crazy? if he/she find my comments appalling he/she can report it to mods, if somebody have to apologize for rude and abusive comments its the person whom you mentioned have to do to several forum members including me

So you're not going to apologise for your insults then? Not surprising I suppose.
Btw, for someone who insulted Socal by saying that he wasn't educated, your grammar is simply appalling.
It's not typos, those are understandable, you don't seem to have grasped the concept of which tense to use, or which form of the verb to use.
Are you crazy? If he/she finds my comments appalling he/she can report it to the mods, if somebody has to apologise for rude and abusive comments it's the person who you mentioned who has to do so to several forum members including me.

Ok English Teacher, I don't come here to learn English from you, but still appreciate your graciousness in educating me with terms of grammar, but whats funny is how many grammatical mistakes you make yourself yet mourning about others , btw can you explain my socalled grammatical mistakes of my previous post so pundits here can observe your grammer and comment on it.

My comment was based on the fact you called Socal an 'idiot' who is 'not educated' quite randomly (no one had said anything to you directly before this point) which I thought was unnecessary; and I hinted that you should apologise.
Edit: Anyway if you don't think you should apologise, that's your call.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I suggest you get your eyes checked if they are telling you Nalbandian is above Murray in any area. And like I said it is not up for debate that Fed respects Nalbandian but what exactly does that mean? Unless you are claiming Fed holds him in more esteem and fears playing him more than Murray?

Overall I think Murray is a better player than Nalbandian, and has achieved more.
They both have brilliant back-hands, neck and neck on that one.

It Must Be Love wrote:My comment was based on the fact you called Socal an 'idiot' who is 'not educated' quite randomly (no one had said anything to you directly before this point) which I thought was unnecessary; and I hinted that you should apologise.
Edit: Anyway if you don't think you should apologise, that's your call.

So you failed to explain my grammatical mistakes of my last post, so you agree now that was just a blatant attack on me and my language for no reason.
Good job IMBL

invisiblecoolers wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:My comment was based on the fact you called Socal an 'idiot' who is 'not educated' quite randomly (no one had said anything to you directly before this point) which I thought was unnecessary; and I hinted that you should apologise.
Edit: Anyway if you don't think you should apologise, that's your call.

So you failed to explain my grammatical mistakes of my last post, so you agree now that was just a blatant attack on me and my language for no reason.
Good job IMBL

I don't think correcting your grammar is a 'blatant attack.'
My point was not that you have bad grammar, but that you shouldn't call people 'uneducated' with no back-ground evidence. If you do call people that (as you did to Socal, along with calling him an idiot), and then write a post with terrible conjugation of the majority of your verbs, then you can expect it to be corrected.