Could Murray Catch Federer Before Wimbledon?

First topic message reminder :

Well now that Andy has the Slam monkey off the back, can he now get closer to that ever elusive goal of being number 1 ranked player in the world? Right now a race between him and Federer for the number 2 ranking. There is a great opportunity for Murray right now to really make in-roads and snag the number 2 ranking from the Swiss Maestro. That for me besides further Slam success must be a goal for Murray. I think he could go into Wimbledon ranked 2 in the world if his performances improve and if Federer cannot retain his IW or Madrid crown. Here is where they stand.

Federer - 9,855
Murray - 8,480* (is set to lose 300 points from DNP at Dubai)

As it stands these are the number of points both players are contesting from now until Wimbledon.

Federer - 3,775
Murray - 1,330

That is quite a meaty gap for Murray to really attack. He has to land a title on Clay to have a decent chance of the number 2 ranking.

How does 606V2 see this going?

legendkillarV2 wrote:Not about rules Craig. I find it amusing that at a time when variation on surfaces and equipment hadn't evolved to what it is now was still a factor in the game that we can label that era weak and yet when conds play the same across all surfaces and equipment advances making it easier not to play a bad shot can be labelled strong. Not an endorsment of quality Craig if I am honest.

This type of argument always puzzles me somewhat. If courts are more similar and equipment easier to use then that should see a narrowing of the margins between players and make it more difficult to win any tournament, as theoretically all players should be equally comfortable on all surfaces. If a few players are utterly dominant despite those factors then surely we have to accept that they are probably qujte exceptional?

No, I think the argument goes along these lines;

If surfaces converged to the point where there was effectively just one (a place we're not at yet but are closer to than at any time), then the best on that one surface would rule all tennis. He wouldn't be all that amazing, just the best on that surface.

If surfaces diverged to the point where specialism rules - where you go to clay and face titans of endurance and manoevering, then to grass and play powerhouses of serve and volley, then off to fast hard courts demanding super-aggressive baseline play and forecourt skill - then to have the capability to rule across all would be incredible. That player would be far more virtuous than the top player in the first scenario. He'd have to be because he'd have to be capable of playing tennis in so many different ways and with far greater range, but better than any specialist.

A bit like finding a Decathlete who could win at each of the individual disciplines; that's a bit better than a guy who wins the shot putt yet couldn't run a tap.

Born Slippy wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Not about rules Craig. I find it amusing that at a time when variation on surfaces and equipment hadn't evolved to what it is now was still a factor in the game that we can label that era weak and yet when conds play the same across all surfaces and equipment advances making it easier not to play a bad shot can be labelled strong. Not an endorsment of quality Craig if I am honest.

This type of argument always puzzles me somewhat. If courts are more similar and equipment easier to use then that should see a narrowing of the margins between players and make it more difficult to win any tournament, as theoretically all players should be equally comfortable on all surfaces. If a few players are utterly dominant despite those factors then surely we have to accept that they are probably qujte exceptional?

Is not tight in the rankings from below the top 10 as that is where you see more frequent changes in players moving up or down. Is the top 10 not narrow? I don't see how that is puzzling. We are simply looking at the top 4. Expand that out and you rarely see the changes in ranking in the top 10 as compared with outside the top 10. This is the issue.

This is where I need LF. I would like to see how many players made the top 10 in say 2003 compare with 2012. That would highlight how narrow todays game is.

Quite. I wrote an article in 07/08 about the futility of judging eras...called it GOATs & GOTEs.

The true test would be winning slams on 4 very difference surfaces, and being year end #1 across fast HC, slow HC, clay, grass and carpet.

At the moment we are converging rapidly to a uniform speed and bounce index irrespective of the top coating. The courts are almost just merely different colours now...green clay, red clay, blue clay, etc. Its so much easier to dominate one surface than 4.

Not to mention that seed numbers increased at the Slams since 2000 thus making it much easier for the top players to have a relatively easy path through the earlier rounds.

legendkillarV2 wrote:Craig I acknowledge people have opinions.

I am in the BB camp. Talk of era's is waste of good time.

Yes I would agree with that but that doesn't alter opinions about eras though. It is a waste of time debating it though.

I think people get carried away on the different surfaces becoming similar.

Nadal has won 8 MC but never in Cincy.

Roger has won 7 Wimbledons but only 1 RG.

Novak has been in the last 6 HC finals but only ever made 1 Wimbledon final.

We get these skews because the surfaces, although slower, are still different.

The big problem is not the similarity between different surfaces but the fact that so many tournaments are the same surface - slow HC!

And were we getting these complaints when Roger made 22 out of 27 finals?

HM Murdoch wrote:And were we getting these complaints when Roger made 22 out of 27 finals?

At the time I think everyone was too busy complaining what a weak era it was and how Fed's slams weren't worth much.

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:And were we getting these complaints when Roger made 22 out of 27 finals?

At the time I think everyone was too busy complaining what a weak era it was and how Fed's slams weren't worth much.

Ah, they were dark days indeed. How everyone yearned for a Golden Era when slams counted for more. People spoke of little else.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

It would make a massive difference. Another match would equate to at least another 2-4 hours on court. How does his chances increase? We are making the assumption that Andy can't be Novak and yet can beat Ferrer. I do believe Murray leads Ferrer in their head 2 head 6-5, but I wouldn't rule out Ferrer in that situation.

If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

It would make a massive difference. Another match would equate to at least another 2-4 hours on court. How does his chances increase? We are making the assumption that Andy can't be Novak and yet can beat Ferrer. I do believe Murray leads Ferrer in their head 2 head 6-5, but I wouldn't rule out Ferrer in that situation.

How on earth would playing a player ranked between 64 and 128 in R1 make a 'massive difference.' The schedule would of course changed for the increase in matches, and a match against a lower ranked player would last between 1-2 hours. In terms of difficulty for Murray in winning a slam it would mean next to nothing.
As for the difference between facing either Djokovic or Ferrer in a final... that makes a massive difference. Surely you can recognise that it would be much harder to face Djokovic?
I'm not making the assumption that Andy can't beat Djokovic, and would definitely beat Ferrer, but what I am saying is that in the Australian Open final Djokoivic would be a totally different proposition.
I'll be honest, I find your claim that having to play an extra match against a lower ranked player makes the tournament harder in difficulty than having to face Djokovic rather than Ferrer in a final, frankly bizzare.

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

Grotesque misrepresentation.

I rated the Slam event itself by prestige and value, not because of who played.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

Grotesque misrepresentation.

I rated the Slam event itself by prestige and value, not because of who played.

Yes I am fully aware of how you rated it.
Frankly if we do try and 'rate' slams, then I think rating it in terms of difficulty in opposition is far more valid than how important it was viewed in the last century (considering the top players give 100% for all the slams now).

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

Grotesque misrepresentation.

I rated the Slam event itself by prestige and value, not because of who played.

Yes I am fully aware of how you rated it.
Frankly if we do try and 'rate' slams, then I think rating it in terms of difficulty in opposition is far more valid than how important it was viewed in the last century (considering the top players give 100% for all the slams now).

Start another thread then because this conversation is about the stupid era thing.

Honestly, just because similar words can appear in a sentence doesn't mean it's got anything to do with the subject in hand.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

No doubt about it. The player who wins the semi is bound to be easier to play than the player who wasn't good enough to win the semi

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

Grotesque misrepresentation.

I rated the Slam event itself by prestige and value, not because of who played.

Yes I am fully aware of how you rated it.
Frankly if we do try and 'rate' slams, then I think rating it in terms of difficulty in opposition is far more valid than how important it was viewed in the last century (considering the top players give 100% for all the slams now).

Start another thread then because this conversation is about the stupid era thing.

Honestly, just because similar words can appear in a sentence doesn't mean it's got anything to do with the subject in hand.

Bogbrush, I'm not implying that you were talking about eras. You were rating slams using a different mechanism.
My Ferrer/Djokovic comment is nothing to do with eras, I'm saying Murray would prefer to play Ferrer. What has eras got to do with that?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

No doubt about it. The player who wins the semi is bound to be easier to play than the player who wasn't good enough to win the semi

Yes that's absoltely right.
Do you want some examples?
Nadal RG 2009. Soderling played a stunning match and shocked Nadal. But in terms of a final, Federer would still prefer Soderling (who might not keep up that level) to a slightly under-par Nadal. And so it turned out.

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

The problem with this endeavour, IMBL, is that even if you were to prove that some slam wins were harder than others, what would that achieve?

I have no problem conceptually with the idea that lucky/tough draws or stronger/weaker contemporaries can make an event harder or easier to win.

But the fact remains that no win 'counts' more than another. A wins a win. Same title, same trophy, same asterisk-free entry in the record books.

So is there any value in debating the difficulty of a win beyond that of simply having chat?

I can guarantee you, a Murray fan watching the AO semi between Djokovic and Ferrer would be wanting Ferrer to win (if Murray was waiting in the finals).
The fact that Ferrer, if he won, would have just won the semi doesn't change this.

I can give you another example: AO 2012, I was supporting Murray in the 5th set of the semi-final as I knew Djokovic would be a tougher proposition for the final. If you can't grip this fact, then there's not much I can say frankly. If you think someone winning a semi makes him a harder proposition for the final, you can continue to hold this belief.

You're just wrong Amrit. Everyone knows Wimbledon is bigger than the AO, virtually every pro has said it.

That's not contentious and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

HM Murdoch wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:If it has been anyone beein trying to rate slams it was Bogbrush. In terms of slam wins, we can see how many slams they have won, who they have beat, and other factors.
There are many different variables, and some may say it's difficult to consider all of them; but it's better than just pretending the other variables don't exist at all and seeing the stats in isolation.

The problem with this endeavour, IMBL, is that even if you were to prove that some slam wins were harder than others, what would that achieve?

I have no problem conceptually with the idea that lucky/tough draws or stronger/weaker contemporaries can make an event harder or easier to win.

But the fact remains that no win 'counts' more than another. A wins a win. Same title, same trophy, same asterisk-free entry in the record books.

So is there any value in debating the difficulty of a win beyond that of simply having chat?

HM, in the trophy books of course they're all worth the same. I'm not denying that.
What I'm saying is that for further analysis you have to consider the circumstances and other factors. Ignoring these and taking the stats in isolation doesn't make you objective. There is no way to be objective, even the statement 'Roger is the best because he has the best stats' is subjective, due to so many other variables changing over time.

bogbrush wrote:You're just wrong Amrit. Everyone knows Wimbledon is bigger than the AO, virtually every pro has said it.

At which point did I say Wimbledon is not bigger than AO in terms of prestige??
My point is these days the top few players give 100% to every slam event, well as far as I can see anyway.

HM Murdoch wrote:
I have no problem conceptually with the idea that lucky/tough draws or stronger/weaker contemporaries can make an event harder or easier to win.

Nor do I, it's another variable and I don't see why it should be ignored.

bogbrush wrote:You're just wrong Amrit. Everyone knows Wimbledon is bigger than the AO, virtually every pro has said it.

That's not contentious and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

You've moved into a hazy area here, BB!

If you accept that a tournament can be more prestigious because of its history, why can't an opponent?

Can IMBL say that Novak or Del Potro beating Fed and Nadal in the SF and F of a slam is more prestigious than, say, Fed beating Kiefer and Baghdatis in AO06?

It Must Be Love wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:
I have no problem conceptually with the idea that lucky/tough draws or stronger/weaker contemporaries can make an event harder or easier to win.

Nor do I, it's another variable and I don't see why it should be ignored.

It's ignored for slams in the 1970s, slams in the 1980s and slams in the 1990s. Unless you want to give your views on each of those 120 slams in turn?
But it's not ignored if it can be used to try and knock Federer down a bit - then it matters hugely. I can't imagine why

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You're just wrong Amrit. Everyone knows Wimbledon is bigger than the AO, virtually every pro has said it.

That's not contentious and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

You've moved into a hazy area here, BB!

If you accept that a tournament can be more prestigious because of its history, why can't an opponent?

Can IMBL say that Novak or Del Potro beating Fed and Nadal in the SF and F of a slam is more prestigious than, say, Fed beating Kiefer and Baghdatis in AO06?

Without looking it up HM, which of Borg's 6 FOs would you say was more prestigious?

JuliusHMarx wrote:Without looking it up HM, which of Borg's 6 FOs would you say was more prestigious?

You're asking me to argue a position I don't hold! I'd gladly dismiss prestige from the debate completely. Assessing prestige is a fruitless endeavour.

Sorry, it was meant be be rhetorical - should have put a smiley.

Julius, what I'm saying can apply to any decade.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

It would make a massive difference. Another match would equate to at least another 2-4 hours on court. How does his chances increase? We are making the assumption that Andy can't be Novak and yet can beat Ferrer. I do believe Murray leads Ferrer in their head 2 head 6-5, but I wouldn't rule out Ferrer in that situation.

How on earth would playing a player ranked between 64 and 128 in R1 make a 'massive difference.' The schedule would of course changed for the increase in matches, and a match against a lower ranked player would last between 1-2 hours. In terms of difficulty for Murray in winning a slam it would mean next to nothing.
As for the difference between facing either Djokovic or Ferrer in a final... that makes a massive difference. Surely you can recognise that it would be much harder to face Djokovic?
I'm not making the assumption that Andy can't beat Djokovic, and would definitely beat Ferrer, but what I am saying is that in the Australian Open final Djokoivic would be a totally different proposition.
I'll be honest, I find your claim that having to play an extra match against a lower ranked player makes the tournament harder in difficulty than having to face Djokovic rather than Ferrer in a final, frankly bizzare.

Like your claim Rafa is 8th favroute for the FO

You are making to assumption that a player ranked between 64 and 128 would be dispatched in 1-2 hours.

Ask Federer if he felt that about Falla or if Rafa felt that about De Bakker or if Murray felt that about Melzer.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:The equation for Slam success will always be the same. Beat 7 people. If that changes, then maybe the value could change on that basis.

The current rating is qualitative and subjected to opinion rather than tangible fact.

I really don't think even if it was changed to 8 matches, it would make a difference in diffuculty of winning a slam.
The first round would be against mainly the new set of players ranked from 64-128 for the higher seeds. Very rarely do they cause an upset, but there are very very rare excpetions- ie Rosol. And anyway if these players are good enough to cause such a big upset, they'd win the R1 in the current format anyway.
Meanwhile for someone like Murray, I lead you back to my earlier example. Suppose Murray is in the AO final and is watching the second semi-final; which is Djokovic vs Ferrer. If Ferrer wins that makes a massive massive difference, the final match-up is much easier and his chances of winning increases hugely. Much more than if he had to play 8 matches.

It would make a massive difference. Another match would equate to at least another 2-4 hours on court. How does his chances increase? We are making the assumption that Andy can't be Novak and yet can beat Ferrer. I do believe Murray leads Ferrer in their head 2 head 6-5, but I wouldn't rule out Ferrer in that situation.

How on earth would playing a player ranked between 64 and 128 in R1 make a 'massive difference.' The schedule would of course changed for the increase in matches, and a match against a lower ranked player would last between 1-2 hours. In terms of difficulty for Murray in winning a slam it would mean next to nothing.
As for the difference between facing either Djokovic or Ferrer in a final... that makes a massive difference. Surely you can recognise that it would be much harder to face Djokovic?
I'm not making the assumption that Andy can't beat Djokovic, and would definitely beat Ferrer, but what I am saying is that in the Australian Open final Djokoivic would be a totally different proposition.
I'll be honest, I find your claim that having to play an extra match against a lower ranked player makes the tournament harder in difficulty than having to face Djokovic rather than Ferrer in a final, frankly bizzare.

Like your claim Rafa is 8th favroute for the FO

You are making to assumption that a player ranked between 64 and 128 would be dispatched in 1-2 hours.

Ask Federer if he felt that about Falla or if Rafa felt that about De Bakker or if Murray felt that about Melzer.

My claim about Nadal was me joking with Lags and SB. If I was being serious, then I agree with you it would be bizarre.

My point is in general a match against a player ranked between 64-128 would generally be an easy match (but of course there are some very rare excpetions eg Falla and Rosol).
Are you seriously claiming Murray wouldn't prefer to face another lowly ranked player in an extra R1 compared to facing Djokovic (rather than Ferrer) in the final?
I stand by my comment, facing an extra low-ranked opponent would make little difference in terms of winning a slam (apart from rare excpetions), while facing Djokovic rather than Ferrer in a final would make a massive difference in terms of winning the slam.

Legendkiller, I think you know I'm right here.
Of course there will be some exceptions, but let's make it clear: these will be rare excpetions (when a player ranked 64-128 seriously troubles a big gun). It doesn't take anything away from my main point.

No IMBL you are not right.

There is no justification or logic applied to someone wishing to play 8 matches in a Slam with Ferrer in the final. Ferrer being one of the fittest guys on tour. In fact should've beaten Murray at Wimbledon with those sets points in the second.

I think you know you're getting a little carried away.

legendkillarV2 wrote:
There is no justification or logic applied to someone wishing to play 8 matches in a Slam with Ferrer in the final. Ferrer being one of the fittest guys on tour. In fact should've beaten Murray at Wimbledon with those sets points in the second.

At which point did I say that?
I was saying that Murray would prefer to face Ferrer rather than Djokovic in a Grand Slam final, and another eighth match against a lowly ranked opponent would not troubel him as much.
At no point did I say Ferrer 'wasn't fit' or whether he 'should' have beaten Murray or not. If not anything the Wimby match shows why Djokovic would be a more dangerous opponent than Ferrer, in the bigger points in the biggest stages he is more reliable and more dangerous.
Can you still not see my point?

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:
There is no justification or logic applied to someone wishing to play 8 matches in a Slam with Ferrer in the final. Ferrer being one of the fittest guys on tour. In fact should've beaten Murray at Wimbledon with those sets points in the second.

At which point did I say that?
I was saying that Murray would prefer to face Ferrer rather than Djokovic in a Grand Slam final, and another eighth match against a lowly ranked opponent would not troubel him as much.
At no point did I say Ferrer 'wasn't fit' or whether he 'should' have beaten Murray or not. If not anything the Wimby match shows why Djokovic would be a more dangerous opponent than Ferrer, in the bigger points in the biggest stages he is more reliable and more dangerous.
Can you still not see my point?

Tell me how an extra 2-3 hours on court would benefit him in another potential 4-5 hour match in the final?

What do top players say after early round matches? "Get off court as soon as I can to preserve energy levels for the latter stage of a tournament."

No why on earth would they want to sway from that type of thinking that serves them so well?

Thats not what Im saying...
Read my comment again.
Im comparing the difficulty of facing another lowly ranked player in Round 1, to playing Djokovic rather than Ferrer in the final.
Feel free to ignore my post and continue though.

At the end of the day to me a slam win is a slam win regardless of who you beat to win it. In years to come you will still have era debates but no one will be able to name which of any of Federer or Nadal or Djokovic's slam wins as most prestigious. One slam = one slam in my opinion.

It Must Be Love wrote:Thats not what Im saying...
Read my comment again.
Im comparing the difficulty of facing another lowly ranked player in Round 1, to playing Djokovic rather than Ferrer in the final.
Feel free to ignore my post and continue though.

Can you ask Andy that let me know if he would agree with how you percieve an easier Slam victory chucking in another match against a lowly ranked opponent and a ranked player outside the top 4 in the final

It Must Be Love wrote:Julius, what I'm saying can apply to any decade.

But neither you nor anyone else can be bothered to apply it to anything other than Federer's slams. This points to 2 things :-
1. It's an attempt by you to favour Nadal, rather than a genuine attempt to analyse tennis history.
2. It doesn't matter hugely. In fact it hardly matters at all, going by the lack of interest in previous decades.

The irony in regard to point 1 is that it's just as easy to de-value Rafa's slams in terms of who he played as it is Fed's. And it's quicker, since there's less of them.

CaledonianCraig wrote:At the end of the day to me a slam win is a slam win regardless of who you beat to win it. In years to come you will still have era debates but no one will be able to name which of any of Federer or Nadal or Djokovic's slam wins as most prestigious. One slam = one slam in my opinion.

Exactly

If it was important, we'd all know whether Borg's 1976 FO was more impressive than Connors' 1976 USO. Whereas in fact, most of us probably can't even name the beaten finalist and we value each one equally.

HM Murdoch wrote:

bogbrush wrote:You're just wrong Amrit. Everyone knows Wimbledon is bigger than the AO, virtually every pro has said it.

That's not contentious and it certainly has absolutely nothing to do with this thread.

You've moved into a hazy area here, BB!

If you accept that a tournament can be more prestigious because of its history, why can't an opponent?

Can IMBL say that Novak or Del Potro beating Fed and Nadal in the SF and F of a slam is more prestigious than, say, Fed beating Kiefer and Baghdatis in AO06?

An individual opponent can be more difficult but this doesn't facilitate weak era or weak event arguments. In the end, to win a Slam you have to beat the best, or beat the players who beat the best.

Saying Wimbledon is bigger than the Australian is just a fact.

[quote="legendkillarV2"]

It Must Be Love wrote:Thats not what Im saying...
Read my comment again.
Im comparing the difficulty of facing another lowly ranked player in Round 1, to playing Djokovic rather than Ferrer in the final.
Feel free to ignore my post and continue though.

Can you ask Andy that let me know if he would agree with how you percieve an easier Slam victory chucking in another match against a lowly ranked opponent and a ranked player outside the top 4 in the final [/quot
e]
If you give him a choice to play a slam without playing a top 5 player he would take it. An extra match against a low ranked player wouldnt be his biggest problem.

Julius- you cant understand what im trying to say so just forget it.

It Must Be Love wrote:
Julius- you cant understand what im trying to say so just forget it.

Oh I can understand it all right
That's why you fail to address my counter-arguments - it's far easier to say 'just forget it'

BB, if the big 4 were all forced to retire today, would it not make it easier for Ferrer to win a slam?
Hed still have to win 7 matches per tournament.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
Julius- you cant understand what im trying to say so just forget it.

Oh I can understand it all right
That's why you fail to address my counter-arguments - it's far easier to say 'just forget it'

your only 'counter' is attacking me rather than my posts.

It Must Be Love wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:
Julius- you cant understand what im trying to say so just forget it.

Oh I can understand it all right
That's why you fail to address my counter-arguments - it's far easier to say 'just forget it'

your only 'counter' is attacking me rather than my posts.

Untrue, but again, an easy way out.

You even admitted it earlier via PM.
You broke SR 5.

Wow, this topic is ebbing and flowing!

So, if Federer beats 7 players to win Wimb, and the same 7 players to win AO to get 2 slams, the value of those 2 slams is clearly the same. If we judge a guy back in the 80s who won 7 AOs and 1 Wimb, and another who won 7 Wimbs and 1 AO...do we say the former has the better record?

However, when we judge guys from the 80s like Becker or Wilander, who does history remember more? Becker of course...because he won Wimbledon 3 times. So in that respect history tends to be kinder in memory to those who won the more prestigious tournaments.

Similar argument may appeal to the Masters tournaments too where winning Rome for example has more cache than winning Paris Indoors. Or winning Miami is better than winning Montreal...but they all count, the totals aren't added differently.

Finally, Borg thought the Australian Open was so worth playing he never, ever, went there even though it was on grass. He would have won 5+ more slams no doubt...but did he bother? Would he have ever missed Wimbledon - no way!!!