Djokovic in Nadals rear-view mirror

First topic message reminder :

For the last few years it has been discussed whether Nadal can catch Federer in terms of greatness, can he catch his slam record?

Just 5 slams separated them them after the 2012 French Open and with the Spaniard being 5 years younger it was looking increasingly likely.

Of course there was still weeks at Number 1 but with 5 years to make up ground and with his superior head 2 head it had been said that perhaps Nadal only needed to make it close in terms of statistics to go down as the greater player, and perhaps the greatest of them all.

Fast forward 7 months, Federer has managed to widen the gap to 6 slams, added another chunk of weeks at World Number 1, and in the meantime a certain Serb collected a sixth grand slam, moving him within 5 slams of Nadal.

As is stands, the Spaniard has 102 weeks at Number 1 falling very short of Federer's new tally of 302. However, the Serbian has snuck up to 66 weeks just 36 weeks shy of Nadal.

At the end of 2012 Novak achieved his second successive year end Number 1, equalling him with Rafa, and in the mean time collected his 2nd year end end championship, a title that has so far eluded the Spaniard.

Quite incredibly, for so long the talk was if Rafa could surpass Roger, in the mean time Novak has snuck up on Rafa and is gaining on him at a much faster pace than Nadal is on Federer.

Their head to head is at the moment 19-14 to the Spaniard, but over the coming years were that to change and the likelihood that Novak will have more weeks at number 1 than Rafa when their careers are done, it could be quite conceivable Djokovic eventually eclipses Nadal's career. Especially if he were to get the French Open before his career is out.

It had been refuted by many Federer fans that Nadal could surpass Federer citing Weeks at Number 1 and 5-Year end Number 1 rankings.

The amazing thing is, Djokovic could come within just a few slams of Nadal, and when all is said and done could have a superior head 2 head record over him. And unlike Federer, Nadal may not be able to boast a longer period at Number 1 with Djokovic looking likely to surpass Nadal in that department also.

Seems quite inconceivable a few years ago, but Djokovic still has a few things to do but if he does we could be looking back on Djokovic being the better player almost out of nowhere. It could be quite similar to Lendl, McEnroe and Borg, with McEnroe chasing down Borg before actually being caught himself by Lendl.

As it stands, Nadal is more at risk of being caught by Djokovic than Federer is by Nadal. However, Nadal may have one final say in the matter in the coming years himself

I believe that there can be no foresight as to who will go on to take the rest of the slams this year. Simply because the major factor has been thusfar neglected. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Rafa can improve his ranking by RG... How big is that? Will he be seeded as no5 or? And if so, could we be looking at some titanic clashes in the quarters? Bad luck for anyone who gets him, no? Also, should he go on to win RG again, still he will merely defend his points and have the same seeding for SW19? Oh the sheer weight of it there. Numerous implications! I believe the draw will be more decisive a factor than ever.

Rafa will almost certainly be ranked 5 for RG. I know that a mathematical formula exists for changing the Slam seedings according to surface. Wimbledon have used it in the past, but I'm not sure if the other slams have simply chosen never to use it, or are not allowed to use it. If the former, the FO might change the seedings around this year.

HM Murdoch wrote:

lydian wrote:Djokovic was horrible around Wimb/OG last year...don't know why but he was, there were rumours of personal family stuff affecting him but no idea why he fell so tamely to Federer and Murray at those 2 events.

I wouldn't go as far as 'horrible' but he was definitely a bit fragile in that period.

His grandfather died at the start of the clay swing, his father was quite seriously ill during the summer and I also think he started to feel the pressure of being 'the hunted' and always having loads of points to defend.

He wasn't a happy chappy for those few months. Lots of racquet smashing (and hacksawing after the Olympics!), we had the double fault horror shows at RG v Rafa and Cincy v Fed (inc a first set bagel), a very meek performance in the Wimbledon semi... it was a strange period.

I'm not sure it affected the head-to-heads much though. Roger and Andy would both be favourites against him on grass and by the USO he seemed to be getting back to his old self, so I don't think form was really an issue there. Andy just played the smarter game that day.

Good post HM.

lydian wrote:CC, rant all you like but I'm firmly of the opinion that the wind devastated Djokovic's (and Berdych's too in the previous round) game against Murray. You could see how it affected him against Ferrer in the semis before it died down...since when did he ever lose a first set 6-2 to Ferrer on HC? The emotional turmoil of battling the wind burnt his energy far quicker. Anyway, my point is that I don't think Murray will evenly split slams with Djokovic, I'm not saying he won't add t his tally as everyone has good/bad days but in general I think it will be 80:20 split at best. My opinion granted...we'll see of course.
BB, yes maybe but the level of wind at USO12 was exceptional to say the least because of Hurricane Isaac.
JHM, but still(er) conditions are the norm...has anyone on here tried playing in 25-30 MPH winds? Reduces a match to a game of Russian Roulette...brings it down to a level playing field where precise skills are nullified. Sure, some players are better at handling wind than others but for those that honed their games playing to the lines, and having the guts to go near the lines, their advantage that they've developed over others is taken away as they all play within 2-3 feet of the tramlines.

Lydian makes some fair points, I actually think the wind hurt Berdych the most because with his flat shots and high serve toss he was highly and visibly disturbed by it. But Craig also makes a fair point that Murray has beaten Novak on multiple occassions when wind wasn't the issue. It is correct though playing in high wind is murder, nothing ruins a tennis match like wind. That being said murray used the proper tactics and kept his poise and Novak did seem to adjust to the wind well enough to win two sets in a row off of Murray. So I don't think we can just lay it at the feet of the wind, it made an impact, both guys had to deal with it and it is the breaks of the game. I think Novak is a better player than murray and probably will maintain that advantage. But I think Murray is close and will get his fair share of wins. It comes down to Nole and Murray, Novak as 1 and murray as his closest rival this upcoming year, and most likely the next couple of years barring injury. Both will add to the slam trophy chest I think that is a fair prognostication. And both have gotten better and better, Murray could come back after great offseason and even be better than Novak for awhile, or vice versa. One thing both guys have shown is an ability as Craig has said to adapt and get better each year. So it is a constant arms race so to speak.

But if you want to nitpick it, the wind probably hurt Novak more than murray, but adjusting to the conditions is part of it and murray's style is highly adaptable. If you play in 6 slam finals every time against a dominant grandslam champion you maximize your chances of getting a break here and there. I mean it wasn't like he played Marcos Baghdatis in that final now that would have been a much more fantastic break than lets say a windy.

Very well put socal and the points you make are correct and fair.

socal1976 wrote:

lydian wrote:CC, rant all you like but I'm firmly of the opinion that the wind devastated Djokovic's (and Berdych's too in the previous round) game against Murray. You could see how it affected him against Ferrer in the semis before it died down...since when did he ever lose a first set 6-2 to Ferrer on HC? The emotional turmoil of battling the wind burnt his energy far quicker. Anyway, my point is that I don't think Murray will evenly split slams with Djokovic, I'm not saying he won't add t his tally as everyone has good/bad days but in general I think it will be 80:20 split at best. My opinion granted...we'll see of course.
BB, yes maybe but the level of wind at USO12 was exceptional to say the least because of Hurricane Isaac.
JHM, but still(er) conditions are the norm...has anyone on here tried playing in 25-30 MPH winds? Reduces a match to a game of Russian Roulette...brings it down to a level playing field where precise skills are nullified. Sure, some players are better at handling wind than others but for those that honed their games playing to the lines, and having the guts to go near the lines, their advantage that they've developed over others is taken away as they all play within 2-3 feet of the tramlines.

Lydian makes some fair points, I actually think the wind hurt Berdych the most because with his flat shots and high serve toss he was highly and visibly disturbed by it. But Craig also makes a fair point that Murray has beaten Novak on multiple occassions when wind wasn't the issue. It is correct though playing in high wind is murder, nothing ruins a tennis match like wind. That being said murray used the proper tactics and kept his poise and Novak did seem to adjust to the wind well enough to win two sets in a row off of Murray. So I don't think we can just lay it at the feet of the wind, it made an impact, both guys had to deal with it and it is the breaks of the game. I think Novak is a better player than murray and probably will maintain that advantage. But I think Murray is close and will get his fair share of wins. It comes down to Nole and Murray, Novak as 1 and murray as his closest rival this upcoming year, and most likely the next couple of years barring injury. Both will add to the slam trophy chest I think that is a fair prognostication. And both have gotten better and better, Murray could come back after great offseason and even be better than Novak for awhile, or vice versa. One thing both guys have shown is an ability as Craig has said to adapt and get better each year. So it is a constant arms race so to speak.

But if you want to nitpick it, the wind probably hurt Novak more than murray, but adjusting to the conditions is part of it and murray's style is highly adaptable. If you play in 6 slam finals every time against a dominant grandslam champion you maximize your chances of getting a break here and there. I mean it wasn't like he played Marcos Baghdatis in that final now that would have been a much more fantastic break than lets say a windy.

walktall2209 wrote:I believe that there can be no foresight as to who will go on to take the rest of the slams this year. Simply because the major factor has been thusfar neglected. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think Rafa can improve his ranking by RG... How big is that? Will he be seeded as no5 or? And if so, could we be looking at some titanic clashes in the quarters? Bad luck for anyone who gets him, no? Also, should he go on to win RG again, still he will merely defend his points and have the same seeding for SW19? Oh the sheer weight of it there. Numerous implications! I believe the draw will be more decisive a factor than ever.

By RG Rafa might be lower than #5.

By Wimbledon he could conceivably be barely top 10. The draw would be insane.

I think the French should just give him the #4 seed regardless of the ranking. They have as much as anyone a vested interest in seeing the stars advance and in seeing the big names reach the later rounds. It is legal, and not unheard of. And I don't think any player would have a gripe that is worth listening to, he is the defending champ and the greatest clay courter of all time.

haha cheeky little jab towards feds there socal, with baghdatis in the final

I am sure if Andy can drive Tomic's Ferrari he might take out Federer, Nadal and Djokovic with some sublime manoeuvring!

lydian wrote:Djokovic was horrible around Wimb/OG last year...don't know why but he was, there were rumours of personal family stuff affecting him but no idea why he fell so tamely to Federer and Murray at those 2 events.

Oh yes, the ingenious excuse of being so distraught at losing the French Open final that he couldn't give 100% to the Wimledon semi-final a full one month later. The only rumours of family stuff were regarding his grand father around Monte Carlo time.

Maybe because he's not as good as those two on grass? Or at least wasn't at that point in time.

He certainly isn't in Federer's league and I think Murray is better too. Why does there always have to be an 'explanation' as to why someone had lost? Djokovic was playing a six times W champion who'd never lost in a W semi - isn't that enough?



emancipator

I also find it interesting Lydian that you should mention that Djoko was horrible around W/OG but not mention anything about his lossses to Nadal during the clay season. Presumably in those matches he just lost to a guy who was flat out better than him?

The fact is we have no idea who would have won that match between Murray and Djokovic if it had been a still day. It's therefore unjust to portray the wind as the decisive factor. We don't know this and it takes credit away from a fantastic achievement by Murray.

you're right eman, but sometimes others use that for some of his losses which are refuted by other fans e.g. back injury, mono, flu etc.

I usually put something down to an off day, loss of confidence, outplayed, or at least i try to.

LuvSports! wrote:haha cheeky little jab towards feds there socal, with baghdatis in the final

I am glad you like that Luvsports, I am trying hard to be very zen like these days but I can't resist the temptation sometimes.

Emancipator, Djokovic had a lot of issues during the middle part of last year not only a death in the family but also illness of his father. These guys aren't robots. I am not saying he would or would have won the matches in question, but as a close observer of his game I can tell you that he was not playing well during that middle stretch of the season it doesn't mean the other players didn't deserve their victories. Form can be fleeting in tennis you have to be foucsed on every ball, sometimes there are things in your life that don't allow that. Borg was shattered by his divorce, Agassi had some of the same demons, Nadal has complained in his biography of family issues impacting his performance. That being said it is more an explanation or an attempt to give context to what was a noticeable dip in form from the way he typically plays. It doesn't mean the other guys didn't deserve their victories everyone has to deal with issues in life that may impact your on the job performance.

LS, all fans do it.

And sometimes there is a genuine reason.

But all this nebulous stuff about family problems is stretching it imo.

I understand your point Socal except for a couple of things:

1) Iirc the problems with his father occured during the indoor season, long after W/OG.

2) Did djokovic really underperform in that stretch? He lost on clay to Nadal who most people would consider to be better than him on that surface, and he lost on grass to Federer, who's never previously lost a W semi-final. Djokovic was favourite heading into that semi against Fed but the latter rolled back the years a little bit and took him out. Do we need anymore explanation than that.

Then he lost to a rejuvinated Murray playing infront of his home crowd at his home Olympics.

Yes he did underperform in the clay court season in my opinion, remember he almost lost to Tsonga, hardly a clay court wizard on clay. Also he had that bizarre match with federer where he couldn't keep two balls on the court for a set and then all of sudden pushed fed to 7-6 second set. 7-6 and 6-0 is a bizarre result, such a wild swing in form over the course of a couple of minutes. It is like during that period his mind would wander in and out of matches. IE gets killed by Nadal and then goes on the rampage only to fall short at the end. From what I understand his father's condition was something that hit at the tail end of the hardcourt season.

As you say we will never know and hey part of life is performing while dealing with outside stress. Some can do it, most people are impacted by this stuff however. But I said long before his father's illness became public that he just looked off with his game. Even before all of those losses I was saying it.

Yeah players have slumps, or they play oppponents that simply play better than them. There's nothing mysterious about it.

emancipator wrote: Did djokovic really underperform in that stretch? He lost on clay to Nadal who most people would consider to be better than him on that surface, and he lost on grass to Federer, who's never previously lost a W semi-final. Djokovic was favourite heading into that semi against Fed but the latter rolled back the years a little bit and took him out. Do we need anymore explanation than that.

Then he lost to a rejuvinated Murray playing infront of his home crowd at his home Olympics.

Final comment on this and then I'll shut up about it.

His results in that period were not in themselves surprising or, for that matter, even that bad. He was making finals and semi finals.

But for those of us who watch a lot of Novak, it was clear he wasn't at his best and was unsettled in that period. Socal and I discussed it a fair bit at the time.

That doesn't invalidate any results and it's not saying he would have won otherwise. But all sportsmen have ups and downs in form and that was a 'down' spell for Novak.

I see a similar thing in Fed too. It's pretty clear he ran out of steam around about the time of the US Open. I'd say his level over US Open / Shanghai / Basel /WTF was a clear notch or two down from his level from say Rotterdam to Madrid (I'll turn a blind eye to Miami!).

People forget that Djokovic in 2012 only fell short by a few points from 2011.

As for his grandfather; for Gods sake that was months previously. Did anyone check his Aunties bowel movements through Wimbledon?

Yes murdoch neither one of us was particularly confident of Novak's play at the time so I concur fully with your last post. I also don't think either of us failed in giving credit where credit was due to his peers, but his form was very sketchy. I think barring injury he will have a much better clay court season this year.

HM Murdoch wrote:

emancipator wrote: Did djokovic really underperform in that stretch? He lost on clay to Nadal who most people would consider to be better than him on that surface, and he lost on grass to Federer, who's never previously lost a W semi-final. Djokovic was favourite heading into that semi against Fed but the latter rolled back the years a little bit and took him out. Do we need anymore explanation than that.

Then he lost to a rejuvinated Murray playing infront of his home crowd at his home Olympics.

Final comment on this and then I'll shut up about it.

His results in that period were not in themselves surprising or, for that matter, even that bad. He was making finals and semi finals.

But for those of us who watch a lot of Novak, it was clear he wasn't at his best and was unsettled in that period. Socal and I discussed it a fair bit at the time.

That doesn't invalidate any results and it's not saying he would have won otherwise. But all sportsmen have ups and downs in form and that was a 'down' spell for Novak.

I see a similar thing in Fed too. It's pretty clear he ran out of steam around about the time of the US Open. I'd say his level over US Open / Shanghai / Basel /WTF was a clear notch or two down from his level from say Rotterdam to Madrid (I'll turn a blind eye to Miami!).

ok fair enough.

bogbrush wrote:People forget that Djokovic in 2012 only fell short by a few points from 2011.

As for his grandfather; for Gods sake that was months previously. Did anyone check his Aunties bowel movements through Wimbledon?

2,500 pts post-USO compared to about 600 the year before was a nice little bonus!

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:People forget that Djokovic in 2012 only fell short by a few points from 2011.

As for his grandfather; for Gods sake that was months previously. Did anyone check his Aunties bowel movements through Wimbledon?

2,500 pts post-USO compared to about 600 the year before was a nice little bonus!

I guess his relatives were feeling much better?

I meant but for a few points in matches he'd have done as well.

bogbrush wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:People forget that Djokovic in 2012 only fell short by a few points from 2011.

As for his grandfather; for Gods sake that was months previously. Did anyone check his Aunties bowel movements through Wimbledon?

2,500 pts post-USO compared to about 600 the year before was a nice little bonus!

I guess his relatives were feeling much better?

I meant but for a few points in matches he'd have done as well.

The ones he lost were fairly convincing defeats. Difficult to argue that Rafa at RG, MC & Rome and Fed at W & Cincy were nip 'n' tuck affairs! Well beaten in all of them. The margins were greater than just 'The Shot' not going in this year!

I also find it amusing those that claim federer was never the same after mono despite playing a 5 set war with Nadal at wimby and attaining the #1 ranking in 2009 being so offended at "excuses". My favorite every time Roger loses on a hardcourt to Nadal, Djokovic, or Murray said hardcourt becomes one of the slowest hardcourts on tour. The people who gave us green clay after 08, and who have whined about the slow conditions that Roger won 17 slams on being so offended categorically at excuse making.

aaargh 'the shot' still gives me nightmares.

emancipator wrote:aaargh 'the shot' still gives me nightmares.

I had it as desktop wallpaper for a while!

And yes, I am that sad.

I think its fair to say Federer wasn't the same for quite a while after mono, it wasn't just that he lost to the likes of Nadal, Murray and Djokovic but he was having some really strange losses leading up to the French Open as well to Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2 and Radek Stepanek in Rome and Andy Roddick in Miami, (bare in mind the standard he had set the years prior)

In Nadals book he mentions that he knew Federer was exhausted in the 5th set at Wimbledon and it was just his serve that was keeping him a live, and once he could get it in play he knew he would win the point.

If I remember right he also lost to James Blake for the first time that year, Ivo Karlovic, Gilles Simon so I wouldn't say it was just that the standard had risen after 2007

In 2009 he was in much better shape but had a serious back injury at the end of 2008 where he didn't even turn up against James Blake, and I think in the Aus Open that year his first serve percentage was 55 percent, so great effort almost winning the whole thing. He gained his number 1 ranking largely because of the large chunk of points Nadal lost in the French Open and Wimbledon stretch for obvious reasons, other than that he only really had a great spell from May-September that year. He was poor at the start and at the end.

The biggest myth in Federer's career is he has stayed injury free, he just more capable of playing injured then any of the other top 4, and is so expressionless when he plays, doesn't grimace or rarely calls for MTOs so when its claimed he's injured it does look a bit disingenuous.

He did win a lot of his slams on slow hard courts but thats because he was still better than anyone else on slow courts until Murray, Djokovic and Nadal turned up and he began to fall off a bit. I think he would have rathered they were quicker even back then, when he was still winning. You could say he was 'lucky' he was playing guys like himself who were faster court players playing on slower courts as well, (Safin, Roddick, Nalbandian, Hewitt, Gonzalez) Then the result of the courts slowing down produced beasts like Murray, Djokovic and Nadal, probably the 3 best athletes the game had ever seen

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Gonzalez are player like Federer CAS, you don't see the internal contradiction in that statement. Safin, Hewitt, and ferrerro couldn't even break into the top 10 in their mid twenties, it wasn't just because federer was beating them all the time. If you want to talk strength of eras there is a thread for that which I just posted. My point here is that federer fans are no virgins when it comes to excuse making, but they have virtually no tolerance of other greats explaining away losses. Hence my reference to green clay.

Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, and Gonzalez would all rather play on fast courts is my point. Hewitt was never the same after 2005, neither was Safin, not sure why you mentioned Ferrero because I didn't? He was a clay court player. So Federer did have a stage where he was on his own for a bit, but I can look back at many era who have that, everyone talks about the incredible 90s era but there was a large phase when Sampras was on his own, Agassi was awol, Courier and Chang were no threat anymore as they fell off a cliff, Becker was ageing. But what makes them great is they never dropped off themselves

I sometimes find it quite ironic that people throw the weak era argument at Federer fans, Nadal in my mind is the greatest clay courter of all time, no question. But who did he have as competition? It was not like Sampras who won 7 Wimbledons against grass court specialist Ivanisevic, Rafter, Becker. Nadal had Almagro....Ferrero as you mentioned him I'll use him....Ferrer.....

CAS wrote:But who did he have as competition?

Federer.
One of the greatest players of all time.
You don't have to be a clay court specialist to be good on clay.
IMO Federer still goes down as around 5th best clay courter of all time in my eyes.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:But who did he have as competition?

Federer.
One of the greatest players of all time.
You don't have to be a clay court specialist to be good on clay.
IMO Federer still goes down as around 5th best clay courter of all time in my eyes.

but Federer wasn't 'THAT" good because he was just fortunate to be playing in a weak era?

CAS wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

CAS wrote:But who did he have as competition?

Federer.
One of the greatest players of all time.
You don't have to be a clay court specialist to be good on clay.
IMO Federer still goes down as around 5th best clay courter of all time in my eyes.

but Federer wasn't 'THAT" good because he was just fortunate to be playing in a weak era?

He was damn good, don't get me wrong.
Things aren't black and white.
Anyway we'll save this debate for later

the point is Sampras had so many more banana skins than Nadal ever has/had. Now that may be just because he was so far a head of anyone, which of course could be true, but why is that not the case for Federer? If some new kid on the block turns up in 5 years time, and dismantles Murray and Djokovic over and over it could be looked back in their prime as a time of them capitalising on an ageing Federer and injury-ridden Nadal. I just think its so harsh when people question Federer, for me anyway its not just what he achieved but its what you see with your naked eye, he played tennis how it should be played like football purists hated the way Chelsea won the champions league and marvel at Arsenal and Barcelona. I don't know how long Novak will be able to keep this up, because when he loses half a yard I can see if affecting him majorly and he's almost 26 now, that being said I am enjoying the show, his backhand defence is my favourite shot in tennis right now, still scratch my head when he hits it

The minute posters (past and present) start talking openly - or even merely hinting - of the early/mid-2000's as being some sort of 'weak era', they always, always, get themselves into a horrendous mess ; and very quickly.

Most commonly (though not always) it is done to build up the status of Nadal and/or Djokovic whilst denigrating that of Federer.

One incident I can remember very well from the old days of Unbiased Educator aka Tennis Tutor aka Simple Analyst aka Wise Analyst etc etc etc. So desperate and obsessed was he to slag off Federer at every conceivable opportunity whilst elevating Nadal yet further (as if he needs elevating at all....) that, during one of his weird ramblings, he actually referred to Federer as a "clay muppet." (the fact that he happens to have the second best record on clay of all active players simply passed him by ...... I mean .... why let fact get in the way of ........ )

It was promptly pointed out to UE that, okay then, if Federer is allegedly so bad on clay that surely is definitive evidence that Nadal had incredibly good fortune in coming up against such a hopeless finalist/semi-finalist whilst amassing so many of his RG titles. Clearly the beneficiary of a weak era.

I really can't remember whether there was a response or not. If there WAS, it would have undoubtedly been yet more waffle......

I don't know what anyone on 606 said, and no one speaks for me.
I don't see Federer as a clay muppet, as I said he would be in my top 5 clay-court champions of all time.

I know the stats don't show that, but I feel the competition you face is as relevant as the stats you accumulate.
I.E. if Murray this Wimbledon was to beat Monaco, Almagro and Ferrer in the final 3 matches, rather than Nadal Federer and Djokovic; it wouldn't be as impressive- despite being statistically the same.

lags, the new breed of such posters are cleverer than that. They still big up Fed - he's the goat even though his slams came in a weak era (but the more my player keeps winning now, the worse it looks for Fed), or he's one of the best ever on clay, but still Rafa beat him etc.
In the words of Tony Curtis in 'Insignificance' - They're tricky!

And no, things aren't black and white.

In boxing for example the Klitchkos are currently dominating the field. They have accumulated fantastic stats, but personally I feel there is not much competition at the moment in the heavyweight division for them at the moment, nor has there been for a while really.
So thus despite respecting Klitchkos has great champions I take this into consideration when analysing how impressive their stats really are.
Of course someone may come along trying to be clever and say 'Ah, this must mean you think Klitchkos are rubbish don't you, and if Lewis beat Vitali that means Lewis must be rubbish too!!!'
No. That's not what I'm trying to argue.

JuliusHMarx wrote:lags, the new breed of such posters are cleverer than that. They still big up Fed - he's the goat even though his slams came in a weak era (but the more my player keeps winning now, the worse it looks for Fed), or he's one of the best ever on clay, but still Rafa beat him etc.
In the words of Tony Curtis in 'Insignificance' - They're tricky!

I wrote my post and then saw your post as I just entered my mine.
Exhibit A.
You're one of the posters who think in black and white, can't understand things can be far more complex.
'Oh you're saying that Federer dominated a era where, despite there being good strength in depth in the top 30 or so, lacked cutting edge competitiors right at the top. Oh, that must mean you think Federer is rubbish!!!'

No.

It Must Be Love wrote:

........................................................................................................

I know the stats don't show that, but I feel the competition you face is as relevant as the stats you accumulate.
I.E. if Murray this Wimbledon was to beat Monaco, Almagro and Ferrer in the final 3 matches, rather than Nadal Federer and Djokovic; it wouldn't be as impressive- despite being statistically the same.

And there we go again, round and round in a never-ending circular tired argument. Same familiar old theories, just expressed a little differently from time to time.

And if none of Nadal, Federer or Djokovic are present in any of these last three hypothetical rounds then presumably that's because they've all been dumped out by other players before Murray could get his hands on any of them ...?

No, don't tell me. They were all injured. BUT if they had been fully fit, then Murray would have surely been stopped in his tracks and one of them would have definitely won the title. Guaranteed.

But if Murray himself had gone on to claim the big trophy then it would have been even more lustrous, due to the sheer presence of the other three.

It all makes sense now.

In fact, it's irrefutable.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:lags, the new breed of such posters are cleverer than that. They still big up Fed - he's the goat even though his slams came in a weak era (but the more my player keeps winning now, the worse it looks for Fed), or he's one of the best ever on clay, but still Rafa beat him etc.
In the words of Tony Curtis in 'Insignificance' - They're tricky!

I wrote my post and then saw your post as I just entered my mine.
Exhibit A.
You're one of the posters who think in black and white, can't understand things can be far more complex.
'Oh you're saying that Federer dominated a era where, despite there being good strength in depth in the top 30 or so, lacked cutting edge competitiors right at the top. Oh, that must mean you think Federer is rubbish!!!'

No.

It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white. And of course the quote which you attribute to me does not reflect in any way my view. You can't understand that things are far more complex.

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white.

That's simply a lie.
This is what I said to you via PM a while back:

Tennis is fluid and always moving so it is very difficult to put a specific time period on any era or generation.

lags72 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

........................................................................................................

I know the stats don't show that, but I feel the competition you face is as relevant as the stats you accumulate.
I.E. if Murray this Wimbledon was to beat Monaco, Almagro and Ferrer in the final 3 matches, rather than Nadal Federer and Djokovic; it wouldn't be as impressive- despite being statistically the same.

And there we go again, round and round in a never-ending circular tired argument. Same familiar old theories, just expressed a little differently from time to time.

And if none of Nadal, Federer or Djokovic are present in any of these last three hypothetical rounds then presumably that's because they've all been dumped out by other players before Murray could get his hands on any of them ...?

No, don't tell me. They were all injured. BUT if they had been fully fit, then Murray would have surely been stopped in his tracks and one of them would have definitely won the title. Guaranteed.

But if Murray himself had gone on to claim the big trophy then it would have been even more lustrous, due to the sheer presence of the other three.

It all makes sense now.

In fact, it's irrefutable.

???
I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

My point is that if Murray had to face Monaco, Almagro and Ferrer in the final 3 matches, rather than Nadal Federer and Djokovic, then it would not be as impressive in my eyes as if he had to beat the latter 3.
Not really sure what you're trying to say though.

I blame Federer for all this confusion.

If he'd had the good grace to be born 5 years later or, at the very least, fade away at the same rate as other players of his age, this would all be much clearer.

HM Murdoch wrote:I blame Federer for all this confusion.

If he'd had the good grace to be born 5 years later or, at the very least, fade away at the same rate as other players of his age, this would all be much clearer.

What's the confusion?
I'm being clear here.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white.

That's simply a lie.

It's not a lie - many posters have done that. And they've done it without you accusing them of thinking in black and white. At no point did I say you had done it, which would have been a lie.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:It's ironic, when so many posters give start and end dates for various eras, that I am the one accused of thinking in black and white.

That's simply a lie.

It's not a lie - many posters have done that. And they've done it without you accusing them of thinking in black and white. At no point did I say you had done it, which would have been a lie.

Oh it was damn clear you were implying me.

It Must Be Love wrote:What's the confusion?
I'm being clear here.

Not you, IMBL. The general confusion around eras and their strength that causes so much debate.