World Tour Finals Day 2 - Nadal, Federer and Djokovic

by Guest Tue 05 Nov 2013, 9:20 am

First topic message reminder :

Tennis fans it is a marquee day today. I can't help but think what a jammy git Danny is to be able view both matches today and also CAS will be there later on when Federer and Djokovic lock horns.

Well today looks to be a bit special.

We have Nadal v Ferrer a rematch from Paris. Can the terrier sink his teeth into Nadal once again and produce another upset? Or will Nadal show up and inflict defeat number 21?

We then have for the main event Federer v Djokovic again another rematch from Paris. Can Roger at the tournament he has dominated Serbinate the Serbinator? Or will Djokovic crush the Swiss maestro.

The sad thing is I won't be able to watch either so a live commentary will be much appreciated and do feel free to discuss all things related to today's place.

Dodgy knees, dodgy backs, dodgy breathing, dodgy racquets. Anything dodgy goes. As the song goes if it is good enough for you, it's good enough for me Very Happy

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 12:55 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Fight fight fight!

Ok if you insist

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 12:59 pm

Trust socal to bring chaos to a well mannered thread! It is funny.

by LuvSports! Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:12 pm

well said haddie!

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:17 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on
Well hang on Socal, inbetween 04 and 07, Nadal won 3 Grand Slams. So by your rationale we should say that Nadal has won 10 GS if discounting GS during that period. He's padded his numbers to against this weak era? Does that place him as GOAT then? Only 10 GS's? You see that is just one flaw to the garbarge theory.

You could argue that Nadal has kept on winning the FO after that - so the opposition quality was moot. Ok then. But Nadal was not winning (or getting to the finals) of GS away from FO against this same creampuff opposition in the same period. Why not? He was a Grand Slam Champion at the time. So it's not like he wasn't good enough. And that's the point. Federer and Nadal have been playing against the same opposition. 25 months seperate their first grand slam wins.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of opposition changes radically in the period of 2 years and 1 month? Of course it doesn't.

Nadal was a puppy, a player whose game back than was not nearly as good as he has been in recent years. I think I hit my serve harder than Nadal 2005 hit his serve. Let me ask you a question do you think the players that are part of the dimi, raonic, nishi, and tomic era can hold a candle to the stars we saw come up in the mid to late 2000s? Tennis always moves forward but the progression is not always linear, some times there is a step back. Fed's contemporaries are the step back from the Edberg, Becker, Sampras and Agassi crop. Just like the dimi/raonic/ and tomic group are a step back from the golden generation

by HM Murdock Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:18 pm

Johnyjeep, at the end of 2007, the number 2 and 3 players in the world were aged 20 and 21.

Why should we not view them as superior to the generation of 25-26 year olds they supplanted? Especially as that older generation never reclaimed those places.

By extension, is it not reasonable to conclude that those two rivals to Federer, now aged 26 and 27, with multiple slam titles and 100+ weeks at number 1 each, are better players now than they were as pups in 2007?

I'm not keen on dismissing any period as being poor but I find the idea that the level of competition is some kind of constant fixed level pretty unconvincing too.

by Leonard777 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:19 pm

Johnyjeep wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on
Well hang on Socal, inbetween 04 and 07, Nadal won 3 Grand Slams. So by your rationale we should say that Nadal has won 10 GS if discounting GS during that period. He's padded his numbers to against this weak era? Does that place him as GOAT then? Only 10 GS's? You see that is just one flaw to the garbarge theory.

You could argue that Nadal has kept on winning the FO after that - so the opposition quality was moot. Ok then. But Nadal was not winning (or getting to the finals) of GS away from FO against this same creampuff opposition in the same period. Why not? He was a Grand Slam Champion at the time. So it's not like he wasn't good enough. And that's the point. Federer and Nadal have been playing against the same opposition. 25 months seperate their first grand slam wins.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of opposition changes radically in the period of 2 years and 1 month? Of course it doesn't.

Well there aren't any decent clay court specialists so we can just as easily say that Nadal has won his french opens in a weak clay court era. At the end of the day, facts and observations speak louder than irrational player allegiances. And Federer is top by some distance.

Nadal lost twice in his prime to total outsiders at Wimbeldon, and Federer didn't in any slam. Try to explain that. Nadal being goat is laughable.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:21 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
socal1976 wrote:We can't keep cutting excuses for the rollover generation of the early to mid 2000s...

...But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on.
I've missed this.

I missed you to Murdoch, I am happy to play the role of Charles Darwin discrediting the myths and superstitions of the past, it is a thankless job of course and the adherents of the swiss Yahweh will of course fight back.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:28 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, at the end of 2007, the number 2 and 3 players in the world were aged 20 and 21.

Why should we not view them as superior to the generation of 25-26 year olds they supplanted? Especially as that older generation never reclaimed those places.

By extension, is it not reasonable to conclude that those two rivals to Federer, now aged 26 and 27, with multiple slam titles and 100+ weeks at number 1 each, are better players now than they were as pups in 2007?

I'm not keen on dismissing any period as being poor but I find the idea that the level of competition is some kind of constant fixed level pretty unconvincing too.

There should be a double Macallan on the rocks waiting for you after the logical simplicity and persuasiveness of this post. My only regret is that I can't be the one buying it for you and throwing it back together.

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:30 pm

Macallan on ice?!?

You sir are a disgrace to fine scotch!

by HM Murdock Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:34 pm

socal1976 wrote: it is a thankless job of course and the adherents of the swiss Yahweh will of course fight back.

Rollover generation... Swiss Yahweh.. this is a greatest hits performance!

JHM and I would like to request an Empanada Dave.

One Shot Andy, No Shot Lleyton and a Russian Playboy would also be well received.

It's like the E Street Band is in town for the first time in years and I want to hear all the classics!

by sirfredperry Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:34 pm

Went on Tuesday afternoon to see Rafa-Ferrer. Very good seat on the non-umpire chair side about half way up just to the right of the net. From here you very much DON'T get the TV angle which, although good for viewers and cameramen, compltely sucks the life out of tennis.
What I saw, and what you don't see on TV with its strange, foreshortened view, is the speed of the players, the incredible movement, and the power and length of the shots. Some times on TV it looks as if the players are not hitting very well. I certainly didn't get that impression yesterday.
Perhaps Rafa will be keener on the WTF staying in London if he wins it this year, which is a real possibility.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:36 pm

Leonard777 wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on
Well hang on Socal, inbetween 04 and 07, Nadal won 3 Grand Slams. So by your rationale we should say that Nadal has won 10 GS if discounting GS during that period. He's padded his numbers to against this weak era? Does that place him as GOAT then? Only 10 GS's? You see that is just one flaw to the garbarge theory.

You could argue that Nadal has kept on winning the FO after that - so the opposition quality was moot. Ok then. But Nadal was not winning (or getting to the finals) of GS away from FO against this same creampuff opposition in the same period. Why not? He was a Grand Slam Champion at the time. So it's not like he wasn't good enough. And that's the point. Federer and Nadal have been playing against the same opposition. 25 months seperate their first grand slam wins.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of opposition changes radically in the period of 2 years and 1 month? Of course it doesn't.
Well there aren't any decent clay court specialists so we can just as easily say that Nadal has won his french opens in a weak clay court era. At the end of the day, facts and observations speak louder than irrational player allegiances. And Federer is top by some distance.

Nadal lost twice in his prime to total outsiders at Wimbeldon, and Federer didn't in any slam. Try to explain that. Nadal being goat is laughable.

Clay court specialists, the whole tour plays like the clay court specialists of 20 years ago. Speed, fitness, huge spinning shots; there are at best a handful of clay courters that could have denied a player like Djokovic the last two years from winning the RG. Djokovic would be a clay court great if not for Nadal the last two years. I am sure Nadal would have had a lot of trouble with all the one slam wonders who lifted the FO prior to his arrival, and if you believe that I got a bridge I like to sell you. I mean Djokovic has already won every master's event on clay and reached two finals only to lose in one to Nadal in the most extremely of tight circumstances. Federer on the other hand played the Baghdatitis' of the world in slam finals. I would pay a lot of money to have Djoko play anyone other than Nadal in the 2012 and 2013 FO final.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:36 pm

legendkillarV2 wrote:Macallan on ice?!?

You sir are a disgrace to fine scotch!

I am American we put ice in everything, you are lucky I didn't say Ice and a coca cola

by Jahu Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:36 pm

All lacking sex here, I swear. So much frustration...

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:38 pm

Yeah on YouTube you can see footage from matches from a court level view. You get a real appreciation for how good they strike if from there There's one of kholschreiber and desk potro it's really something

by LuvSports! Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:38 pm

OMG PLEASE DON'T PUT E STREET BAND AND SOCAL IN THE SAME LOVING SENTENCE!

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:39 pm

Leonard777 wrote:
Johnyjeep wrote:
socal1976 wrote: Nadal has had to accomplish his 13 slams against much tougher competition and in the face of massive adversity from injuries. And I don't even like Nadal's game that much and he just took the number 1 ranking from my favorite player. But I have always given the man his due despite his on the court coaching and unseemly habit of digging for gold in his crack after every point. Facts are facts anyone who can't see that fed's 04-07 competition was softer than a creampuff has rose tinted shades on
Well hang on Socal, inbetween 04 and 07, Nadal won 3 Grand Slams. So by your rationale we should say that Nadal has won 10 GS if discounting GS during that period. He's padded his numbers to against this weak era? Does that place him as GOAT then? Only 10 GS's? You see that is just one flaw to the garbarge theory.

You could argue that Nadal has kept on winning the FO after that - so the opposition quality was moot. Ok then. But Nadal was not winning (or getting to the finals) of GS away from FO against this same creampuff opposition in the same period. Why not? He was a Grand Slam Champion at the time. So it's not like he wasn't good enough. And that's the point. Federer and Nadal have been playing against the same opposition. 25 months seperate their first grand slam wins.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that the quality of opposition changes radically in the period of 2 years and 1 month? Of course it doesn't.
Well there aren't any decent clay court specialists so we can just as easily say that Nadal has won his french opens in a weak clay court era. At the end of the day, facts and observations speak louder than irrational player allegiances. And Federer is top by some distance.

Nadal lost twice in his prime to total outsiders at Wimbeldon, and Federer didn't in any slam. Try to explain that. Nadal being goat is laughable.

Let the facts speak for themselves...his career is not yet over and his name as with all the greats will be remembered forever in the tennis history books... Nadal has contributed towards Fed´s greatness they have
been the inspiration of so many following in their wake. Never will you be able to speak of one without mentioning the other... McEnroe/Bjorg/Connors are testimony to that. Do not undermine Nadal´s greratness because of your dislike of him.

by **laverfan** Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:43 pm

socal1976 wrote: By the way why is it that Ferrer at one year younger than fed is having the best days of his career and Roger is so far off, 32 is not a broken down age in the modern game, since winning wimby he just again he just has not had the hunger to train in the same manner.

Ferrer has his up and down days, too. See the difference between Paris 2013 and WTF 2013.

Some one who lost weight to reduce pressure on his back (as noted by Darren Cahill of ESPN @Cincy 2013, and Lydian as well), you are saying he [Federer] does not have the hunger.

Look at Federer's matches vs Del Potro in the last 3 months. Or the last Fedal match.

BTW, welcome back. Good to 'see' you back on here. Hope you and your family are doing well, and perhaps Rouhani can help calm the tensions a bit.

by HM Murdock Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:43 pm

Jahu wrote:All lacking sex here, I swear. So much frustration...

Sorry but if we're talking about frustration, I can't resist Wink

:

Jahu wrote:Come on Fed, knock his ugly ears off...

Jahu wrote:Come on Ferrer, deck himmmm

Jahu wrote:Come on Fed, mash him into a xmass puding

Jahu wrote:Djoko fisting like a kid, Fed needs a slap to wake him up.

Incidentally, "knock his ugly ears off" really made laugh!

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:46 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
Jahu wrote:All lacking sex here, I swear. So much frustration...
Sorry but if we're talking about frustration, I can't resist :
Jahu wrote:Come on Fed, knock his ugly ears off...
Jahu wrote:Come on Ferrer, deck himmmm
Jahu wrote:Come on Fed, mash him into a xmass puding
Jahu wrote:Djoko fisting like a kid, Fed needs a slap to wake him up.

HM you are being very very naughty devil

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:51 pm

laverfan wrote:
socal1976 wrote: By the way why is it that Ferrer at one year younger than fed is having the best days of his career and Roger is so far off, 32 is not a broken down age in the modern game, since winning wimby he just again he just has not had the hunger to train in the same manner.
Ferrer has his up and down days, too. See the difference between Paris 2013 and WTF 2013.

Some one who lost weight to reduce pressure on his back (as noted by Darren Cahill of ESPN @Cincy 2013, and Lydian as well), you are saying he [Federer] does not have the hunger.

Look at Federer's matches vs Del Potro in the last 3 months. Or the last Fedal match.

BTW, welcome back. Good to 'see' you back on here. Hope you and your family are doing well, and perhaps Rouhani can help calm the tensions a bit.

Thank you LF, I really do miss you as well. I don't think Fed has had much hunger to succeed since winning wimby and getting his number 1 ranking back. The back is a chronic issue he has had for some time, and could easily be symptom of lack of core training. Training your core is the most grueling and tiring part of physical fitness, if you don't give it your all and try to play through an 11 month schedule without doing the work in the gym you are more inclined to back injuries. Show me a tennis player who plays a great deal and I will show you a guy with a dodgy back. The serve in particular the kick serve is brutal on your back.

by Jahu Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:51 pm

Hahahahah

HM thanks for patience and dedication of collecting my Djoko quotes Smile

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:53 pm

We expect more gems in the coming days jahu:D

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:55 pm

Ive missed you too Socal welcome back (though secretly you havent ever left us I bet) Wink

by Jahu Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:55 pm

falzy21, I hope too, and with all you people here, its always fun and motivational Smile

by **laverfan** Wed 06 Nov 2013, 1:59 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, at the end of 2007, the number 2 and 3 players in the world were aged 20 and 21.

Why should we not view them as superior to the generation of 25-26 year olds they supplanted? Especially as that older generation never reclaimed those places.

Is age the definitive guide for greatness? So Chang and Becker? You know players mature at different points. I answered a question for SFP (https://www.606v2.com/t49358-atp-tournaments-winners-over-30-1968-2013-open-era) which shows that 1975 had largest number of players winning ATP titles. So by your definition, everything after 1975 is bunkum tennis? chin

HM Murdoch wrote:By extension, is it not reasonable to conclude that those two rivals to Federer, now aged 26 and 27, with multiple slam titles and 100+ weeks at number 1 each, are better players now than they were as pups in 2007?

I'm not keen on dismissing any period as being poor but I find the idea that the level of competition is some kind of constant fixed level pretty unconvincing too.

This is purely subjective, correct, HMM?

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:00 pm

slashermcguirk wrote:Glad you enjoyed the experience CAS, I went to the world tour finals for the first time last year and it is an amazing atmosphere, mind you I did get a pretty dull match, Murray vs Tsonga. Amazing to see the top players in action, the movement and ball striking is amazing.

I think we need to enjoy these top players while we still have them. Let me be clear as well that I was not taking a dig at Federer by saying he did play weaker players in his heyday. The guy is phenomenal and I was a big fan up until about US open 2011 when I thought he came across as a real bad sport. He was taking digs at Djokovic style of play and hitting a "slap shot" on match point and how lucky he was. Didnt like that and really put me off him, how you handle yourself is as important if not more than how you handle yourself winning.

That being said, i am still a huge fan of the way Federer plays the game. He has amazing variation and is capable of shots that nobody else can hit. The fact that he is still testing the best at his age along with his career achievements to date tell you everything about the champion that he is. I may have gone off Federer slightly off the court but am still blown away but some of his shotmaking.

We could argue all day about what all these guys would have achieved if all playing each other in their prime. We will never know but what cannot be argued is that the competition of today is far higher than it was during Federer's early years. I am sure he would acknowedge that himself if he could.

In my opinion, Federer is the most naturally gifted player of this generation and one of the most talented of all time. I think Nadal is the most incredible competitor and his consistency and record against his top rivals might never be matched. Djokovic I see as a mix of the two, he has incredible talent and hits far more winners than the likes of Nadal but also has that dogged never say die attitude and ability to slog out a rally like nadal.

I would see Murray at a level below them but on his day he is capable of the sublime. The big one missing for him is any kind of record on clay. Amazing to think he has never made a single final on clay in his career. The other three have consistently competed at the highest level on all surfaces but Murray has been found wanting here.

Respect to them all though, great champions that we should enjoy while we have them

Great post slasher, glad I went back to read it all. I really do agree. I like to have my digs at Fed, I mean as a Novak fan I still enjoy Novak's wins over Roger much more than any other player. I don't care if Fed is 106 years old I love to watch him lose. At the same time I do realize that more than any player he has helped the game and the tour and that now it is up to Djoko, Nadal, and Murray to continue to carry the mantel. I loved Fed's post match interview in 2011 USO for the first time we heard a smattering of boos as the mask of 9 time Nike/Edberg award winner fell off and the egomaniacal sore loser underneath was revealed.

by Jahu Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:02 pm

laverfan wrote: perhaps Rouhani can help calm the tensions a bit.

[/quote]
Oh thats deep. Thought I hope too, as socal has been spotted around Algodones Sandy Dunes dungeons laughing

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:02 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive missed you too Socal welcome back (though secretly you havent ever left us I bet)

Thanks haddie, missed you as well. I would occasionally read the posts but I would not regularly log on. I put a lot of energy in my posts and sometimes I feel like doing it and sometimes I don't.

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:08 pm

socal1976 wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive missed you too Socal welcome back (though secretly you havent ever left us I bet)
Thanks haddie, missed you as well. I would occasionally read the posts but I would not regularly log on. I put a lot of energy in my posts and sometimes I feel like doing it and sometimes I don't.

Well as they have just said on the tv here Socal.. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.... arn´t we so lucky to have them ??
And I have to agree with that .. what a contribution they have all made to this game we all love.
That cannot be taken away from any of them whether you like them or not.

But keep posting Socal .. you make me laugh Hug

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:11 pm

Jahu wrote:
laverfan wrote: perhaps Rouhani can help calm the tensions a bit.

Oh thats deep. Thought I hope too, as socal has been spotted around Algodones Sandy Dunes dungeons laughing

[/quote]
What? are you trying to call me a sand Nword, is this your cute way of racially slurring me? We know you hate Serbians do you hate Iranians as well?

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:16 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Ive missed you too Socal welcome back (though secretly you havent ever left us I bet)
Thanks haddie, missed you as well. I would occasionally read the posts but I would not regularly log on. I put a lot of energy in my posts and sometimes I feel like doing it and sometimes I don't.
Well as they have just said on the tv here Socal.. Federer, Nadal and Djokovic.... arn´t we so lucky to have them ??
And I have to agree with that .. what a contribution they have all made to this game we all love.
That cannot be taken away from any of them whether you like them or not.

But keep posting Socal .. you make me laugh

Thanks haddie you are real sweet, I have to say eventhough I rated Nadal highly he has surprised me, and I hope to see him continue to play eventhough I know it will limit Novak's slams we are lucky to have such a strong group of stars at the top of the game and quality individuals as well who bring unique personalities to tennis as well.

by Jahu Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:18 pm

Hahahah, yeah this is what I wanted, to fire you up.

No I have no problems with Serbs, say I like Tipsarevic, Ana too.

As for Iranians, I'm fine as well apart that Iran still think Tito is still alive and have Serbia their only friend in Europe !! (Tito was Croat btw, not serb) hihihih.

Chill now, I know you like this politically charged government sponsored crap that is the foundation of sport, in Iran, oh and Serbia!!!

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:27 pm

Jahu wrote:Hahahah, yeah this is what I wanted, to fire you up.

No I have no problems with Serbs, say I like Tipsarevic, Ana too.

As for Iranians, I'm fine as well apart that Iran still think Tito is still alive and have Serbia their only friend in Europe !! (Tito was Croat btw, not serb) hihihih.

Chill now, I know you like this politically charged government sponsored crap that is the foundation of sport, in Iran, oh and Serbia!!!

What are you talking about? I am not upset just perplexed at what freaking point your are trying to make and obviously you know less about Iran and its people than you know about tennis and comedy. Iran was the principal financier of Bosnians when Nato and the west had an arms embargo against them. There is a street in a very wealthy part of Tehran named Bosnia Hercegovina, what is all this nonsense about Tito and Iran being friends with Serbia. I am Iranian so therefore you will find me hanging around sand dunes, you do realize this is racist and unfunny? You jump around more than a call girl at a convention. Do you think Iranians are stupid and think Tito is still alive, do you think us backwards? I honestly don't know what to make of it, and trust me you don't upset me in the least I just find your veiled allusions a little disturbing.

by **JuliusHMarx** Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:30 pm

Haddie-nuff wrote:Do not undermine Nadal´s greratness because of your dislike of him.

Agreed, although I think Leonard's response was just a reply to socal undermining Fed's greatness because of his dislike for him. I tend to disregard such opinions given that they are based on emotion more than anything else, although socal at least has an entertaining way with words of course.

by HM Murdock Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:43 pm

laverfan wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, at the end of 2007, the number 2 and 3 players in the world were aged 20 and 21.

Why should we not view them as superior to the generation of 25-26 year olds they supplanted? Especially as that older generation never reclaimed those places.
Is age the definitive guide for greatness? So Chang and Becker? You know players mature at different points. I answered a question for SFP (https://www.606v2.com/t49358-atp-tournaments-winners-over-30-1968-2013-open-era) which shows that 1975 had largest number of players winning ATP titles. So by your definition, everything after 1975 is bunkum tennis?

Well you've mad a few leaps there but lets look at it this way. Were Fed's generation early bloomers i.e. aged 20 to 21?

Hewitt was number 1 in 2001 but he was followed by Kuerten, Agassi and Kafelnikov. Rafter, Henman and Sampras were also in the top ten.

So it's not as if Fed's generation elbowed the best of the previous generation out of the way with any haste.

They were however, with the exception of Federer, removed by best of the following generation pretty quickly. Rafa got to number 2 at age 19, Novak to number 3 at age 20.

So if we have a group of players who didn't displace the previous stalwarts very quickly but were quickly usurped by the next generation, what conclusion should we draw? On what does the claim that the middle generation are even the equal of their predecessors or successors rest?

laverfan wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:By extension, is it not reasonable to conclude that those two rivals to Federer, now aged 26 and 27, with multiple slam titles and 100+ weeks at number 1 each, are better players now than they were as pups in 2007?

I'm not keen on dismissing any period as being poor but I find the idea that the level of competition is some kind of constant fixed level pretty unconvincing too.
This is purely subjective, correct, HMM?

Yes. But I would suggest that thinking 26 year olds with years of competing at the top level, years of winning big matches and years of making improvements to their game are now better players than when barely out of their teens has a pretty good weight of conjectural evidence behind it! Is there really any doubt whatsover that Rafa, Novak and Andy are better now than they were in 07?

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Do not undermine Nadal´s greratness because of your dislike of him.
Agreed, although I think Leonard's response was just a reply to socal undermining Fed's greatness because of his dislike for him. I tend to disregard such opinions given that they are based on emotion more than anything else, although socal at least has an entertaining way with words of course.

Erm I think there is a difference here JM
I have never seen Socal say he loathes Federer whatever else he might say. That, imo, is an emotion which has no part in our criticisms on here me thinks... But maybe then that is MY opinion :OK:When the mere notion of Rafa ever being classed as a GOAT is considered laughable why should there not be a response ??

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:49 pm

JuliusHMarx wrote:
Haddie-nuff wrote:Do not undermine Nadal´s greratness because of your dislike of him.
Agreed, although I think Leonard's response was just a reply to socal undermining Fed's greatness because of his dislike for him. I tend to disregard such opinions given that they are based on emotion more than anything else, although socal at least has an entertaining way with words of course.

For me greatness and grrrrrr-eatness do not totally depend on ability to handle a carbon fibre stick with string in the vicinity of fuzzy green spheres, a net, and a series of painted lines. Nor is it totally dependent on total number of tournaments won, money pocketed and property owned.

For me I think we need to take tennis to the next level - perhaps we could add a few trap doors and one of those train crossings. Ultimately it is all about entertainment, bottoms on seats, market value and what the punters can pay. There should be intermissions with a few cartoons at the beginning (i.e. wimmens matches for the laffs and gents in raincoats - best of three games and a 10 minute time limit). There should also be a time limit for masculine matches and if time runs out a Duckworth Lewis solution to who wins.

by LuvSports! Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:51 pm

Socal said he hated fed fans for a while.

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:53 pm

Hate is such a strong word. Maybe disliked?

by Haddie-nuff Wed 06 Nov 2013, 2:57 pm

LuvSports! wrote:Socal said he hated fed fans for a while.

That I think was a figure of speech with Socal. To post that you "loathe" someone is some powerful emotion in my book.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:00 pm

LuvSports! wrote:Socal said he hated fed fans for a while.

No I did not, I stated that I disliked Federer fans who dislike every other modern champion except Federer and make unsubstantiated accusations of PED use against Fed's rivals. I never stated I hated all Federer fans. I do dislike a small minority sub-group of fed fans who dis the other big 4 players and make accusations of PED use with no evidence.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:03 pm

Great first set so far Nadal v. Wawrinka. Stan breaks back with Nadal serving for the set. Is it possible Stan wants to exorcise his ghosts against Nadal, probably highly unlikely but he is turning out some inspired stuff at the moment.

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:04 pm

Why all this fuss about hate? I have many hates and go out with people with similar hates. No-one seems to complain - some are very fashionable and it helps to keep the hare dry when it reigns.

by LuvSports! Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm

Sorry, you said they were the greatest evil in tennis.

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:07 pm

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:08 pm

Nore Staat wrote:Why all this fuss about hate? I have many hates and go out with people with similar hates. No-one seems to complain - some are very fashionable and it helps to keep the hare dry when it reigns.

Can I have what you are smoking, it is not fashionable to hog the doobie.

by socal1976 Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:08 pm

Nore Staat wrote:Why all this fuss about hate? I have many hates and go out with people with similar hates. No-one seems to complain - some are very fashionable and it helps to keep the hare dry when it reigns.

Can I have what you are smoking, it is not fashionable to hog the doobie.

by LuvSports! Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:10 pm

Does nobody care about the match going on atm!??!?!

Stan broke nadal back and got to only his 5th tie break vs rafa in 12 meetings!

by Guest Wed 06 Nov 2013, 3:11 pm

Post live commentary of the match as I can't watch it. I need commentary people. Stop being bumholes!

by Sponsored content