Lendl touches on the very reason that top heavy eras are the best, hmmm who said that first?

First topic message reminder :

"Other than when he lost to Novak here in 2011, he has always played the No1 player in the world in the finals and those are difficult to win. "[Andre] Agassi beat Rainer Schüttler, I beat [Miroslav] Mecir. I'm not trying to say they were bad players, however they were not No1 at the time they were in the finals.

"This is the era the way it is, the top four are clearly better than everyone else. You don't get No7 in the finals. Andy didn't have any of those yet.

"Of course, when you get them, you have to take advantage of that as well, but it's just a tough era, as we keep saying all the time.

This is what I keep saying about the nature of tournament tennis, parity is really not that important. Whether the number 50 player is two percent better or worse doesn't really impact a player like murray or Djokovic or federer in winning a slam. Having to beat two legends in the semi and the final is what makes an era tough. Look at the physical and emotional toll it took on murray. The top 4 or 5 guys at most, at most determine who wins the major honors, they define the era.

Even lendl touched on it, I beat Mecir in a final, Andy doesn't have that luxury, neither does Novak and neither does roger and when Rafa comes back either. It is the top dogs that determine an eras strength and funny that Ivan Lendl agrees with socal, and seems to dispute this idea that all eras are the same and equally tough.

Wait I know what your response is going to be because I am Nostrafreakingdamus....wait for it...David ferrer!!!!!!!!!

haha YESSSSS HM!!!!! TOP LED!!!

i was brought up on him by my papa!
We used to read passages from his albums over dinner as jesus used to do.

Can't wait to see him in june COMMEEE ONNN THIIISSS TRAIIIIINNN!!

Is a promise that love couldn't keep
Same as a promise broken?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Is a promise that love couldn't keep
Same as a promise broken?

Ah, Over The Rise. Which is also a line in itself from one of my favourite Bruce songs...

Whilst it takes nothing away from actual numbers, there is relevance when discussing the "finer" point, about whom players faced in their Major finals.

Federer didn't have a "nemesis" until Nadal came along - aside from Roddick at Wimbledon - he played 6 different players in his first 7 Major singles finals. Doesn't take a thing from the numbers, and you can only play whomever arrives on the other side of the draw.

Look at Nicklaus in golf, he won 18 Majors, but was runner up another heap of times, with the same mainly 2 players that were always contesting the final rounds of Majors. There was a solid triumverate that consisitently year in and year out, made the final rounds, playing for The Title.

This "era" of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, and now Murray - is very, very strong. Even when you had a "solid" top three to four players in the world rankings before, those major titles were often spread around with a "dotting" of others that won the title - it wasn't the same 4 players making the semis of Majors, for 7, 8, 9 consecutive Majors. Slightly disparate in earlier pre-Open days because a player would win 4 or 5 Majors, then move on to the professional game; many times the defending champion wasn't even allowed to play the next year due to professional status.

Lendl is not saying Murray isn't up to the task, just what a herculean task it is, to win a Major these days because of the presence of the aforementioned "Top Four."

All those people who said with such venom that Murray would never, could never win a Major - here he is the US Open Champion and I still believe that he will end with 4-7 Majors at the end of his career. Nothing but nothing compares to the experience of being in those Major finals - look at Chrissie and Martina who just about had a monopoly on the finals in Major events. When someone finally broke throught, it was such a new and overwhelming experience, they often did not play to their "standard."

As Murray makes more of these Major finals, he will win again. Lendl won his 5th, but the went on to lose the next 2 finals in which he played. And he actually over achieved in making those earlier finals, yet it was put as a negative when he didn't win them for the first 4 times, and then 6 of first 7. It's a process.

Federer didn't have consistent, high level competition and never had to deal with the emotions, realities of playing that "bete noire," until Nadal came along and went from being "just a clay courter" in many peoples' books - to Aus, Wimbledon and US Open champ.

Whatever - it's all just part of the process of sport, tennis and indeed Life. I am enjoying seeing this all unfold, and guess I am lucky in that I don't mind too much whomever lifts the trophy, as long as there's some helluva battle(s) along the way between these top four guys. It's a priviledge to be seeing this all unfold.

Federer's got a great shout at Wimbledon; Nadal needs some serious point protecting in the Spring through Roland Garros, then it's all "freebies" after his time off. Murray's going to be right in that mix too - and somone WILL come along before too long to throw a spanner in the "four man" works, it always happens...

If there were 32 players all of fairly equal ability it would be much more difficult to win a slam than with just 4. It would require a winning a tough match from R32 onwards i.e. 5 tough matches.
For the big 4 over the last year or two it requires 2 at most. For the most part they breeze into the semis. Take Djoko at this year's AO - just the final against Murray. How does that make it so much tougher to win it than before?
If there was more strength in depth there would be more tougher matches in earlier rounds.

Its impossible to prove whether four players being so dominant is due to their level or due to a lack of strength in depth. In the absence of evidence that significantly less players are playing tennis I would however say it is hard to see why the average level of player would have decreased. It is far more likely you would just have a spell with four exceptional players.

JuliusHMarx wrote:If there were 32 players all of fairly equal ability it would be much more difficult to win a slam than with just 4. It would require a winning a tough match from R32 onwards i.e. 5 tough matches.
For the big 4 over the last year or two it requires 2 at most. For the most part they breeze into the semis. Take Djoko at this year's AO - just the final against Murray. How does that make it so much tougher to win it than before?
If there was more strength in depth there would be more tougher matches in earlier rounds.

But doesn't this argument boil down to "if Andy wasn't as good, it would be tougher to win a slam"?

If we imagine that the level of the top 4 was on a par with the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro and Ferrer, we could say that we have 8 guys of roughly equal ability. That makes it harder to win the event.

That's technically strength in depth but it's not a higher quality of tennis.

I think this hints at what often gets lost in debates about this era. We measure the greatness of players almost in binary terms - did they win or did they not win?

So when we hold up, say, Ferrer and argue that if this guy can can go deep in a slam, this can't be a strong era, we miss the point a little. Ferrer never gets even a sniff of actually winning a slam, so he's not the best measure of the strength of the era.

For Andy to win a slam, he usually has to consecutively beat two players of incredible slam winning pedigree. Even the least decorated of them is a 6 time winner. That is why this era is so hard.

I see this as a nice era to be a merely "very good" tennis player. You can get yourself in and around the top ten without necessarily needing sky high ability.

But if you have aspirations to be a mutli-slam winning great, this is (or has been) an incredibly tough era. Not unprecedented certainly, but there haven't been a lot of periods with that level of quality at the very top of the game.

Yes HM

Nope, we're back to the same circular logic.

There is nothing about the number of Slam wins your rivals have that dictates how hard it is. Every year there are 4 Slams won, that means the aggregate Slam titles around is added each year by four. No more, no less, regardless.

It is logically impossible to differentiate between concentrated Slams caused by excellence at the top or by mediocrity elsewhere. Everything objective is measured by reference to the contemporaries, it is always a zero sum game; the aggregate excellence always equals the aggregate failures.

It continues to surprise me how few people can actually grasp this.

bogbrush wrote:Nope, we're back to the same circular logic.

There is nothing about the number of Slam wins your rivals have that dictates how hard it is. Every year there are 4 Slams won, that means the aggregate Slam titles around is added each year by four. No more, no less, regardless.

It is logically impossible to differentiate between concentrated Slams caused by excellence at the top or by mediocrity elsewhere. Everything objective is measured by reference to the contemporaries, it is always a zero sum game; the aggregate excellence always equals the aggregate failures.

It continues to surprise me how few people can actually grasp this.

By this logic then, it's impossible to say if Fed is really any good. He won all those slams but, if aggregate excellence is equal to aggregate failure, then his competition was riddled by failure and is therefore nothing to rate highly.

It also means that all we can say of Fed is he was better than his contemporaries. His position relative to players of the past is impossible to judge.

In which case, how can you declare him the GOAT? Or better than say Edberg or Becker?

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If there were 32 players all of fairly equal ability it would be much more difficult to win a slam than with just 4. It would require a winning a tough match from R32 onwards i.e. 5 tough matches.
For the big 4 over the last year or two it requires 2 at most. For the most part they breeze into the semis. Take Djoko at this year's AO - just the final against Murray. How does that make it so much tougher to win it than before?
If there was more strength in depth there would be more tougher matches in earlier rounds.

But doesn't this argument boil down to "if Andy wasn't as good, it would be tougher to win a slam"?

If we imagine that the level of the top 4 was on a par with the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro and Ferrer, we could say that we have 8 guys of roughly equal ability. That makes it harder to win the event.

That's technically strength in depth but it's not a higher quality of tennis.

I think this hints at what often gets lost in debates about this era. We measure the greatness of players almost in binary terms - did they win or did they not win?.

But isn't that precisely the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are not deemed as great - because in binary terms they didn't win many slams. And by extension, that must mean Fed had it easy. Whereas if Safin had won 6 slams and Fed only 14, we'd have to give Fed more credit for overcoming 6-time champ Safin. In the end Fed would get more credit for winning 14 than for winning 18.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:If there were 32 players all of fairly equal ability it would be much more difficult to win a slam than with just 4. It would require a winning a tough match from R32 onwards i.e. 5 tough matches.
For the big 4 over the last year or two it requires 2 at most. For the most part they breeze into the semis. Take Djoko at this year's AO - just the final against Murray. How does that make it so much tougher to win it than before?
If there was more strength in depth there would be more tougher matches in earlier rounds.

But doesn't this argument boil down to "if Andy wasn't as good, it would be tougher to win a slam"?

If we imagine that the level of the top 4 was on a par with the likes of Tsonga, Berdych, Del Potro and Ferrer, we could say that we have 8 guys of roughly equal ability. That makes it harder to win the event.

That's technically strength in depth but it's not a higher quality of tennis.

I think this hints at what often gets lost in debates about this era. We measure the greatness of players almost in binary terms - did they win or did they not win?.

But isn't that precisely the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are not deemed as great - because in binary terms they didn't win many slams.

No, Safin and Hewitt both disappeared from the top 10 after 2005? If they had consistently reached Grand Slam finals pre-2005 I would rate them higher.
Nalbandian did not even reach a Grand Slam Final.
Roddick is one where I am a bit subjective, and I feel his baseline game was limited and he relied a lot on his serve, so in terms of a Grand Slam final opponent was quite beatable (in relative terms of course, he'd beat me 6-0 6-0 6-0).

If you consistently reach the latter stages of Grand Slams that makes you a more dangerous opponents in the next Grand Slam final, as they have more experience at that level.
For example when Federer faced Gonzalez, Baghdatis in the Grand Slam final, how much experience did they have at that level?
Not much.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:Nope, we're back to the same circular logic.

There is nothing about the number of Slam wins your rivals have that dictates how hard it is. Every year there are 4 Slams won, that means the aggregate Slam titles around is added each year by four. No more, no less, regardless.

It is logically impossible to differentiate between concentrated Slams caused by excellence at the top or by mediocrity elsewhere. Everything objective is measured by reference to the contemporaries, it is always a zero sum game; the aggregate excellence always equals the aggregate failures.

It continues to surprise me how few people can actually grasp this.

By this logic then, it's impossible to say if Fed is really any good. He won all those slams but, if aggregate excellence is equal to aggregate failure, then his competition was riddled by failure and is therefore nothing to rate highly.

It also means that all we can say of Fed is he was better than his contemporaries. His position relative to players of the past is impossible to judge.

In which case, how can you declare him the GOAT? Or better than say Edberg or Becker?

Isn't that pretty much what socal and a few others say when they go on about weak eras?

My view of him as GOAT is based on a broad basket of inputs which I assimilate in my head and out comes an answer. Most of it involves using relative measures (for instance, him beating Djokovic and Murray at Wimbledon, in successive matches, just before he's 31 carries a VERY big tariff) but in the end there can be no conclusive proof.

It Must Be Love wrote:If you consistently reach the latter stages of Grand Slams that makes you a more dangerous opponents in the next Grand Slam final, as they have more experience at that level.
For example when Federer faced Gonzalez, Baghdatis in the Grand Slam final, how much experience did they have at that level?
Not much.

About the same as Nadal or Djokovic's first Slam final opponents.

JuliusHMarx wrote:But isn't that precisely the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are not deemed as great - because in binary terms they didn't win many slams. And by extension, that must mean Fed had it easy. Whereas if Safin had won 6 slams and Fed only 14, we'd have to give Fed more credit for overcoming 6-time champ Safin. In the end Fed would get more credit for winning 14 than for winning 18.

Erm, not exactly.
Let's put it this way.

Which of these quizzes is it harder to get full marks on?

Quiz A
1) What is the square root of 100?
2) Who is the Prime Minister of the UK?
3) What is the currency of the USA?

Quiz B
1) What is 1+1?
2) What is the first letter of the alphabet?
3) Explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Quiz A is three moderately easy questions
Quiz B is two very easy questions but one incredibly hard question.

It is harder to get full marks on Quiz B.

Using David Ferrer as the measure of an era is like using "what is 1+1?" as the measure of Quiz B. It doesn't matter how easy the first two questions are, it's the final question that makes it difficult.

With Andy, it doesn't matter how easy it is to get to the SF, the difficulty in his winning a slam lies in the last two rounds.

By extension, with Federer, I think a case can be made that he has got full marks in a lot of quizzes but some of the earlier ones were Quiz A. Murray, so far, has had to take Quiz B every time.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If you consistently reach the latter stages of Grand Slams that makes you a more dangerous opponents in the next Grand Slam final, as they have more experience at that level.
For example when Federer faced Gonzalez, Baghdatis in the Grand Slam final, how much experience did they have at that level?
Not much.

About the same as Nadal or Djokovic's first Slam final opponents.

Yes that's correct.
I've said before that Nadal and Djokovic, Nadal especially had a relatively easy slam final for their first win.

HM Murdoch wrote:
Erm, not exactly.
Let's put it this way.

Which of these quizzes is it harder to get full marks on?

Quiz A
1) What is the square root of 100?
2) Who is the Prime Minister of the UK?
3) What is the currency of the USA?

Quiz B
1) What is 1+1?
2) What is the first letter of the alphabet?
3) Explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Quiz A is three moderately easy questions
Quiz B is two very easy questions but one incredibly hard question.

It is harder to get full marks on Quiz B.

Using David Ferrer as the measure of an era is like using "what is 1+1?" as the measure of Quiz B. It doesn't matter how easy the first two questions are, it's the final question that makes it difficult.

With Andy, it doesn't matter how easy it is to get to the SF, the difficulty in his winning a slam lies in the last two rounds.

By extension, with Federer, I think a case can be made that he has got full marks in a lot of quizzes but some of the earlier ones were Quiz A. Murray, so far, has had to take Quiz B every time.

Of that's just superb. Absolute genius post.
Am I allowed to add that to the 'equal era myth' article?

It Must Be Love wrote:Of that's just superb. Absolute genius post.
Am I allowed to add that to the 'equal era myth' article?

Plagiarise to your heart's content!

nalbandian did reach a final imbl. He just got pasted in it by hewitt in wimby 02.

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:But isn't that precisely the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are not deemed as great - because in binary terms they didn't win many slams. And by extension, that must mean Fed had it easy. Whereas if Safin had won 6 slams and Fed only 14, we'd have to give Fed more credit for overcoming 6-time champ Safin. In the end Fed would get more credit for winning 14 than for winning 18.

Erm, not exactly.
Let's put it this way.

Which of these quizzes is it harder to get full marks on?

Quiz A
1) What is the square root of 100?
2) Who is the Prime Minister of the UK?
3) What is the currency of the USA?

Quiz B
1) What is 1+1?
2) What is the first letter of the alphabet?
3) Explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Quiz A is three moderately easy questions
Quiz B is two very easy questions but one incredibly hard question.

It is harder to get full marks on Quiz B.

Using David Ferrer as the measure of an era is like using "what is 1+1?" as the measure of Quiz B. It doesn't matter how easy the first two questions are, it's the final question that makes it difficult.

With Andy, it doesn't matter how easy it is to get to the SF, the difficulty in his winning a slam lies in the last two rounds.

By extension, with Federer, I think a case can be made that he has got full marks in a lot of quizzes but some of the earlier ones were Quiz A. Murray, so far, has had to take Quiz B every time.

It's a good try, but it fails again because of the same old logical flaw.

How do you know that player 3 in Quiz scenario 2 is as hard as Newtons Law?

LuvSports! wrote:nalbandian did reach a final imbl. He just got pasted in it by hewitt in wimby 02.

Yes, apologies for that. You're correct, my mistake
After 2003 he didn't though

HM Murdoch wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:But isn't that precisely the likes of Hewitt, Safin and Roddick are not deemed as great - because in binary terms they didn't win many slams. And by extension, that must mean Fed had it easy. Whereas if Safin had won 6 slams and Fed only 14, we'd have to give Fed more credit for overcoming 6-time champ Safin. In the end Fed would get more credit for winning 14 than for winning 18.

Erm, not exactly.
Let's put it this way.

Which of these quizzes is it harder to get full marks on?

Quiz A
1) What is the square root of 100?
2) Who is the Prime Minister of the UK?
3) What is the currency of the USA?

Quiz B
1) What is 1+1?
2) What is the first letter of the alphabet?
3) Explain Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation

Quiz A is three moderately easy questions
Quiz B is two very easy questions but one incredibly hard question.

It is harder to get full marks on Quiz B.

Using David Ferrer as the measure of an era is like using "what is 1+1?" as the measure of Quiz B. It doesn't matter how easy the first two questions are, it's the final question that makes it difficult.

With Andy, it doesn't matter how easy it is to get to the SF, the difficulty in his winning a slam lies in the last two rounds.

By extension, with Federer, I think a case can be made that he has got full marks in a lot of quizzes but some of the earlier ones were Quiz A. Murray, so far, has had to take Quiz B every time.

Great post HM

carrieg4 wrote:Great post HM

It's a great try, but it really isn't you know. False analogy.

Who wants to pull my finger?

Not really BB. Your rebuttal is questionable at best. Unless of course you are saying that it is as easy to face a still fit multi slam winner in a final as it is to face someone with less experience at that level. That would be a silly assertion.

bogbrush wrote:It's a good try, but it fails again because of the same old logical flaw.

How do you know that player 3 in Quiz scenario 2 is as hard as Newtons Law?

Consider it a proof of concept.

Let's take names and and history out the discussion.

Would you agree conceptually that if you are a 'very good' player, you have more chance of winning Tournament A where all the opposition is merely 'average' than Tournament B where some players are rubbish but one guy is fantastic?

You're a fan of compound probability. 0.6 x 0.6 x 0.6 is better odds than 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.2.

I suspect the discussion of the strength of any period can never be conclusive. But if we can accept that it is at least possible for some periods to be harder than others, then at least the discussion isn't totally pointless!
(it's only 90% pointless!)

Multi-Slam winning Djokovic is a much harder final than Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez...

To add to my previous post, I loathe relative era discussions as they impossible to compare. I do however believe that some GS final opponents are mentally easier than others to face. This is true of any era.

BB, as an additional point:

You started a thread about the toughness of Fed's draw at the Australian Open.

If you're open to the idea that one sequence of opponents in the present can be easier than another sequence in the present, why are you so against the idea that a sequence in the past could be easier?

I'm not really good with numbers, not am I that great with English language. But still I will try to put forward something which will hopefully make sense.

What is more difficult? Facing an "established" and/or "experienced" player or a player on a hot streak?

Stan Wawrinka played a great match against Djokovic in 4th round. Comparing to that, Final against Murray was "not so tough" for Djokovic. If draw had gone in the way that Stan had met Djoko in final, which one of these matches would have been considered tough? And would it have tarnished Djoko's victory in any way?

One example I always remember in these discussions about relative merits of slam opponents is Gonzalez in AO 2007 final. Now, that was a form player if any. He was absolutely flailing the ball both at Kooyong and at AO. Federer had to soak in every bit of pressure from Gonzo in that final. Still, how can people diiscount that as an easy final is beyond me.

And one more thing. When posters here say that it would have been easy for Murray to face the players that Federer faced in the finals they forget one thing, match-up.

It Must Be Love wrote:Multi-Slam winning Djokovic is a much harder final than Roddick, Baghdatis and Gonzalez...

I don't think you would agree with I'm saying in a million years but still see my above post.

(I was typing while 3-4 posts were made.)

If Djokovic had faced Stan in 2013 AO final, it would not have been a 5 setter.
Wawrinka doesn't have the experience in Grand Slam finals, he would have been overwhelmed if it was a final.

Spuranik, that's a great point and one which demonstrates the ultimate futility of the debate!

We always judge the difficulty by the name. The performance tends to fade from memory.

Mentally a person who has experience in Grand Slam finals will be much better equipped when they player another GS final.
That's what I think anyway.

HM Murdoch wrote:Spuranik, that's a great point and one which demonstrates the ultimate futility of the debate!

We always judge the difficulty by the name. The performance tends to fade from memory.

I agree. It is a futile debate. HM, why do we get involved with people who believe they irrefutably know the answer? Every point has an equally valid counter-point.

It Must Be Love wrote:If Djokovic had faced Stan in 2013 AO final, it would not have been a 5 setter.
Wawrinka doesn't have the experience in Grand Slam finals, he would have been overwhelmed if it was a final.

It's lovely how sure you make that sound when it is quite subjective.

I gave example of Gonzo.

Baggy took a set off Federer in AO final.

Del Potro won his first GS title against an established name with no experience at all.

Spuranik, do you think Wawrinka would have even got 2 sets against Djoko if they played in a final? I don't think so.

And as for Del Potro, do you not feel the fact he beat two greats in the way to winning USO makes his feat more impressive?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Spuranik, that's a great point and one which demonstrates the ultimate futility of the debate!

We always judge the difficulty by the name. The performance tends to fade from memory.

I agree. It is a futile debate. HM, why do we get involved with people who believe they irrefutably know the answer? Every point has an equally valid counter-point.

Sometimes it makes for good sport. More often it leads to a breakdown. I've actually lost track of what point I'm making with you and BB! Is it Murray? Ferrer? Weak eras? I'm sure it's something to do with tennis...

Bill Murray and Jose Ferrer perhaps?

It Must Be Love wrote:Spuranik, do you think Wawrinka would have even got 2 sets against Djoko if they played in a final? I don't think so.

It's purely subjective. As I gave you the examples, it's not like players don't win against established names. If Baggy could take a set of Fed and Del Potro can win against him, Stan can take a couple of sets from Djoko too.

It Must Be Love wrote:And as for Del Potro, do you not feel the fact he beat two greats in the way to winning USO makes his feat more impressive?

Proves my point again. Del Potro wasn't overwhelmed by big names on the other side of the net in semi and the final. Had he lost that match against Fed, you would have been the first to discredit Fed's victory saying that Del Potro isn't really that difficult a guy to defeat in a slam final.

Yes, for Federer a player like Djokovic or Nadal will still be harder than someone with less experience like Del Potro.
Of course I'm saying 'in general' not all the time.
Eg in FO 2011 Fed beat Djoko, but in USO 2009 Del P beat Fed. So that is an exception to the rule.

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, for Federer a player like Djokovic or Nadal will still be harder than someone with less experience like Del Potro.
Of course I'm saying 'in general' not all the time.
Eg in FO 2011 Fed beat Djoko, but in USO 2009 Del P beat Fed. So that is an exception to the rule.

Well, considering the fact that Djoko lost to Fed in USO 2009 SF while Del Potro defeated Fed in the final, why should Djoko be considered a difficult player to play in the final.

That's my point. A player on a hot streak with no slam final experience need not be less difficult to play against.

And again, you are making an exception when it suits you.

spuranik wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Yes, for Federer a player like Djokovic or Nadal will still be harder than someone with less experience like Del Potro.
Of course I'm saying 'in general' not all the time.
Eg in FO 2011 Fed beat Djoko, but in USO 2009 Del P beat Fed. So that is an exception to the rule.

Well, considering the fact that Djoko lost to Fed in USO 2009 SF while Del Potro defeated Fed in the final, why should Djoko be considered a difficult player to play in the final.

That's my point. A player on a hot streak with no slam final experience need not be less difficult to play against.

And again, you are making an exception when it suits you.

No Im saying USO 2009 is the exception.

In general facing a player with experience in Grand Slams final is harder.

You mean like Roddick, Hewitt and Safin?

Hewitt and Safin after 2005 were out of the picture Julius, in terms of Grand Slam finals.
Roddick certainly had the experience in finals though

It Must Be Love wrote:Hewitt and Safin after 2005 were out of the picture Julius, in terms of Grand Slam finals.
Roddick certainly had the experience in finals though

I didn't realise we were splitting it up into '2005 and before'/'after 2005'. I can't keep track of the era start/end dates.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:Hewitt and Safin after 2005 were out of the picture Julius, in terms of Grand Slam finals.
Roddick certainly had the experience in finals though

I didn't realise we were splitting it up into '2005 and before'/'after 2005'. I can't keep track of the era start/end dates.

That's not an era start date?? Did I say that?

OK, so Hewitt and Safin after 2005 were out of the picture - then it was Roddick, Agassi, Nadal etc. And occassionally someone else who was playing well enough to get to the final because the No 2, 3 and 4 seeds (like Rafa, for example) weren't good enough to get there.

But I do understand you quest to devalue Federer every chance you get - how else will you persuade the world that Rafa is better? It ought to be enough that you think he's better, because persuading the world is an awfully big task. I also appreciate that you don't want to devalue him too much, otherwise Rafa's H2H becomes less important in arguing that Rafa is the greatest sportsman of all time.

Julius I make my points, and they should be judged by the substance of them.
Rather than your interpretation on the person who made the points.

I could also argue that I think you're a Federer fan- so does this make any thing you say on Federer invalid?