Full Spectrum domination of the alleged GOAT

First topic message reminder :

What we witnessed today as a one handed Nadal dismantled Federer is that Rafa was winning basically every pattern of play. His passing shots are better than Roger's volleys. FH to FH Nadal had the edge, BH to BH big edge for Nadal, fed FH to Rafa BH surprisingly the edge goes to Rafa. And of course Nadal FH to fed backhand was so lopsided as possible. Rafa serve overwhelms Fed's return while Rafa can break federer. In short we are seeing the most lopsided rivalry between two all time greats that I can remember. The final will be coronation and how fitting that Pete and Laver each first tier GOAT candidates could watch this dismantling of one Goathood in favor of the true Goat. Can we stop calling this matchup a rivalry it has not been one for 5 years now. This was like watching the Marines invade Grenada it was over before it began and by the afternoon the boys had busted out the beach towels and sun tan lotion.

Old 606 was a battleground and we all enjoyed it or the founders wouldn't have named this place 606v2. I agree Lydian can't warm to Roger in the least bit. Don't think he is a bad person, in fact the opposite. But Roger the player has always left me feeling like I was missing something in terms of excitement, it all seemed too clinical and too perfect.

I've called JHM a smart arse...we all let rip now and then. This place is like Fight Club.

HM Murdoch wrote:JHM - "naughty naughty boy" is not what typed. How was it changed?

I'm not bothered, just amazed! It must have happened within a couple of seconds!

You must have typed something that hit the auto-rude-word changer. Guess it was worse than Fed fan!

lydian wrote:I've called JHM a smart arse...

 
Yeah but at least that's probably accurate - 'Fed fan' isn't.

Sorry JHM, but I have to put this witchcraft to the test!:

naughty naughty boy
Meat trombone soloist
Muppet

I definitely had you down as a Fed fan JHM.

HM Murdoch wrote:Sorry JHM, but I have to put this witchcraft to the test!:

naughty naughty boy
Meat trombone soloist
Muppet

WOW!!! THIS IS INCREDIBLE!!!!

lydian wrote:I definitely had you down as a Fed fan JHM.

It's my occasional criticism of Rafa that leads to that conclusion. Connors, Henman, Agassi are the only players I've ever really been a fan of. My preference is for Murray now, but not at true 'fan' level. I really didn't like it whenever Fed beat Henman or Agassi. That USO final was gutting.

Yep, agreed. Major Agassi fan here too.
When you consider how hard 35yo Agassi pushed prime Fed in that 2005 USO final, it made you wonder whether Fed was put rather too high on the pedestal by many.

The relativism game is full of contradictions.

It's not hard to 'demonstrate' the game is at a pretty low ebb right now and Nadal is enjoying the benefit of an unchallenging field.

I am disappointed  I was hoping the new Federberg 98 incher would make a difference. As I have said before Nadal is pure Kryptonite to Federerman. I wonder how Wawrinka's SHBH will cope? Game set match Nadal?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:I definitely had you down as a Fed fan JHM.

It's my occasional criticism of Rafa that leads to that conclusion. Connors, Henman, Agassi are the only players I've ever really been a fan of. My preference is for Murray now, but not at true 'fan' level. I really didn't like it whenever Fed beat Henman or Agassi. That USO final was gutting.

I felt sorry for Roddick whenever he was up against Federer. Roddick deserved a Wimbledon title but Federer just stuck in there.   

Nore Staat wrote:I am disappointed   I was hoping the new Federberg 98 incher would make a difference.  As I have said before Nadal is pure Kryptonite to Federerman.  I wonder how Wawrinka's SHBH will cope?  Game set match Nadal?

It did make a difference - he didn't lose before the semi-final.

Nore Staat wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

lydian wrote:I definitely had you down as a Fed fan JHM.

It's my occasional criticism of Rafa that leads to that conclusion. Connors, Henman, Agassi are the only players I've ever really been a fan of. My preference is for Murray now, but not at true 'fan' level. I really didn't like it whenever Fed beat Henman or Agassi. That USO final was gutting.

I felt sorry for Roddick whenever he was up against Federer.  Roddick deserved a Wimbledon title but Federer just stuck in there.   

Yes, wanted Roddick to win that last one, especially as that 5th set went on.

He should have won it in straights. That 3rd set TB simple volley for 2 MPs must still haunt him.

falzy21 wrote:Right,
Socal stop arguing,
Kernet stop acting high and mighty, it annoys people and garners further response.

Everyone else... enjoy the article but stop taking the bait, seriously...

Frankly, it is not my concern if my "acting high and mighty" annoys everyone else.

I am not part of any popularity contest.

Wumming is bad in all of its guises, anti-Fed, anti-Nadal or anti-Djoko, and I have no patience for any of them.

The only reasons I do not jump to attack anti-Nadal or anti-Djoko wums is that their fanbases can fight their own battles.

So please take your "advice" to me somewhere else.

You see falzy - it's not that easy being a Mod

Its not advice kernet, and it is your concern if it annoys everyone else, because it keeps the argument going when it has no need to. Youre part of a forum with at least some standards here, and if you are an adult as I suspect you are you know that you need to give and take in these situations. You dont like Socals point? Thats cool, say you disagree but dont patronise him, else hell respond. The result is that itll just escalate, and THEN the mods will have to get involved with you.
Everyone of this forum is a person in real life, they know how this works, you wouldnt get away with what you said to Socal in real life without a smack in the face, soo why do it here?

Im sure you have a riposte but ive no beef with you, just be    and stay calm. You didnt like what he had to say, soo be it, counter it nicely, else youll end up the problem

Never said it was easy JHM, but then you have asked whether youre modding correctly, soo I just said how I thought it was done.

End of the day, I come here to talk some proper tennis talk with people who are interested, becaus theres noone in my real life willing to compare the relative merits ot Wawrinka vs Gasquets backhand. So its nice when eveyones getting along and disagreeing respectfully

falzy21 wrote: Its not advice kernet, and it is your concern if it annoys everyone else, because it keeps the argument going when it has no need to. Youre part of a forum with at least some standards here, and if you are an adult as I suspect you are you know that you need to give and take in these situations. You dont like Socals point? Thats cool, say you disagree but dont patronise him, else hell respond. The result is that itll just escalate, and THEN the mods will have to get involved with you.
Everyone of this forum is a person in real life, they know how this works, you wouldnt get away with what you said to Socal in real life without a smack in the face, soo why do it here?

Im sure you have a riposte but ive no beef with you, just be    and stay calm. You didnt like what he had to say, soo be it, counter it nicely, else youll end up the problem

Hint: misspelling my username is not exactly a way to win friends and influence people.

As for real life, I am quite be prepared to defend myself if need be.

As an adult, I guess if I do not like it here, I can go....

I now remember why I do not post here that much....

Since I am all of a sudden universally reviled, I will take my "high and mighty" act elsewhere.

Its your call kemet (apologies), youre an adult after all. Remember its just a guys opinion on a tennis player, it looks out of place to call someone immature for that. One might make the mistake that youre looking to fight with him, which isnt what most people want.
Im not looking to be your friend, ive no idea who you are, but being a little more polite and not getting in a huff goes a long way.

falzy21 wrote:Its your call kemet (apologies), youre an adult after all. Remember its just a guys opinion on a tennis player, it looks out of place to call someone immature for that. One might make the mistake that youre looking to fight with him, which isnt what most people want.
Im not looking to be your friend, ive no idea who you are, but being a little more polite and not getting in a huff goes a long way.

It has nothing to do with an opinion; I cannot stand Rafa's game, but will not go around making wind-up threads every time he happens to lose, and I cannot stand it when other fanbases do it.

If I have to be censured so be it; I rarely post anyway and am not narcissistic enough to believe anyone will miss me if I get banned.

Perhaps it is threads such as this that it the problem, and not me for voicing my displeasure about it.

Kemet you are not universally reviled and are a good poster no need for you to go . I enjoyed our discussion just don't take it so serious would be my suggestion

Noone wants to ban you kemet, but you cant call someone infantile for a post and then say you dont want to get involved do you see?
I get it Socals got a divisive opinion and he does make stuff as a wind up sometimes. However we dont get suckered into the trap, its kinda funny sometimes, and you joke about it, but it IS his opinion and hes not insulting anyone on the board for it, you just need to shrug it off im afraid theres not really another recourse

Ok it was a bit of wummery it's not the end of the world and was meant to be a bit humorous

This guy tends to agree with full spectrum of domination from big UK newspaper...

Midway through this semi-final, Roger Federer went on the offensive – but only when he was sitting down. While waiting for Rafael Nadal to have his blisters taped, Federer complained to the umpire about the volume of Nadal’s grunts. “It hasn’t been something new,” came the sensible reply.

Federer sounded a little like Mr Pipe-and-Slippers, objecting ineffectually to the raging house party next door. But then, nobody makes him feel his age like Nadal. Yesterday’s 7-6, 6-3, 6-3 defeat brought the guillotine down on Federer’s early-season revival, and reminded us that he is still a 32-year-old facing a hungry posse of twentysomethings.

“I don’t know how to explain to you guys,” said Federer afterwards, as he found himself besieged by journalists who wanted to know where his form had evaporated to. “It’s totally different playing Rafa over anybody else. Playing [Andy] Murray or Rafa is day and night. It’s not because of the level necessarily, but it’s just every point is played in a completely different fashion and I have to totally change my game.”

In other words, Federer tried to be Federer, but Nadal would not let him. When Federer stepped up to hit his backhand, Nadal’s throat-seeking top-spin forced a flurry of miscues. When Federer rushed the net, Nadal’s passing shots were so deadly that they could have been lined up with telescopic sights. Federer’s miraculous new racket had reverberated like a bass drum all fortnight, but against Nadal, it reverted to a tinny snare.
Not that this is anything new. We saw the same script played out in most of their previous 32 meetings. The tallest edifice in modern tennis is now tilting even more precipitously in Nadal’s favour, with 23 wins to just 10 losses. In grand slams, the bias is 9-2 in Spain’s favour.

While yesterday’s match offered little in terms of drama, the quality of play was high. Murray’s former coach, Brad Gilbert, put it well when he tweeted: “Rafa in beast mode and that cannot be stopped.”

Indeeed Nadal was almost unrecognisable from the erratic, anxious character who had struggled to subdue Grigor Dimitrov – the man known as “Baby Fed” – in four sets on Wednesday. Few athletes in history can match Nadal’s ability to summon his A-game when it is most urgently required.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/tennis/australianopen/10594624/Rafael-Nadal-beats-Roger-Federer-in-straight-sets-to-reach-Australian-Open-final.html

I honestly think that Novak, Rafa and Roger are all very similar in ability to each other. In that sense, Federer was fortunate to get the lessened competition that he did early on - but he did capitalise on it, and we shouldn't underestimate how difficult it actually is to win three slams in a calendar year, virtually regardless of opponent. He deserves a lot of respect for the statistics that he's compiled, and what he's done for the game. And he'll never be out of the GOAT debate (ever) because of the way he plays, and that's something that everyone else is just going to have to accept. It's worth at least a slam to some people.

Like lydian said, Nadal is a one-off and a similarly unbelievable player. He's done more to revolutionise the technical and tactical aspects of the sport than any other player in the last two decades, far more so than Federer who is essentially an extremely refined 'classical' player. He also deserves huge kudos for consistently having big challenges in his path - but an interesting question that I'd pose is 'how much of a challenge did Federer alone actually constitute?' If Nadal hammers him so easily in the match-up, does that detract from some of his own slam achievements, because he 'only' had to beat Federer in the final? I say no, but then I don't think that Nadal has always had it so easy against Federer, certainly not compared to today's match.

Novak is a phenomenal player in his own right, and is unlucky that he has three players in his way who can all regularly challenge and beat him.

So, to conclude...the GOAT debate rages on! But I can understand both sides of the coin, and see where socal & others are coming from. The domination of Nadal, not just over Federer but also over most of the tour due to his incredible matchplay skills, has to be increasingly respect. He's one of a kind...they both are.

Biting stuff. The result was a bit dissapointing for Federer in the end, not just the outcome but the method. I really felt it looked set for him to finally break the pattern, but he came crashing down to earth, he just wasnt anything close to what he was 2 days previous. Thats gotta be mental

Nothing to do with loads of fizzing Nadal passing shots, or making Federer look puny on the BH side whilst his own BH was a powerhouse all match then? To be honest Nadal made Federer look rather ordinary most of the night, holding serve fairly easily whilst challenging each one of Federer's. Federer just hasn't got the slam game to challenge Nadal anymore and to be honest hasn't done for nigh on 7 years. This rivalry really is cooked and increasingly overhyped.

falzy21 wrote:Noone wants to ban you kemet, but you cant call someone infantile for a post and then say you dont want to get involved do you see?
I get it Socals got a divisive opinion and he does make stuff as a wind up sometimes. However we dont get suckered into the trap, its kinda funny sometimes, and you joke about it, but it IS his opinion and hes not insulting anyone on the board for it, you just need to shrug it off im afraid  theres not really another recourse

But I did not call Socal infantile personally, I called the post infantile. Since I am an adult, some of my replies were infantile and I should have followed the tried and true maxim of "if you do not have anything good to say, do not say anything at all."

It would be illogical to call Socal infantile because I do not know him outside of this forum and neither he does me and even the most mature people can make immature arguments or do immature things as well.

As I said, I cannot stand wummery period. I guess this is why I should have simply stayed away as I should not be presumptuous enough to impose my value system on everyone else.

I apologize if I said anything in haste, but I felt like a cornered animal and lashed out at you unfairly.

At the end of the day, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, etc. are all very successful people who most likely have no idea who we are in real life, so socal is right, I should not take this so seriously, since I am not going to see any of Roger Federer's prize money and need to keep things in perspective.

Cool, welcome back kemet, thank you   

Since I derailed the thread, I may as well be more substantive in my responses.

Rafael Nadal has always been a problem for Roger Federer, regardless of age, and as Federer remarked in the linked article, playing Murray, and then Nadal is like night and day. Once that top-spinning serve goes high to Roger's backhand, there is really little else that he can do. The backhand reply is inevitably short and Rafa begins to dictate with his forehand, keeping Roger on the defensive all the time.

The only surfaces where Roger stand a chance are on fast indoor hardcourts and on grass (Wimbledon 2008 notwithstanding).

This is why I was surprised that Stan beat Djokovic, but then again, maybe there is something about Djoko's game that Stan can target better than his countryman (Federer has lost six sets in a row to Novak in Australia).

I have no problem admitting that someone with Rafa's unconventional game is too good for Federer. It is a mark of his success and standing in the game that it takes someone with Rafa's unique game to unseat him from the top of the game.

falzy21 wrote:Everyone else... enjoy the article but stop taking the bait, seriously…

Only if such common sense prevailed. The Defenders of Faith of Roger and Rafael have taken their respective trenches. The Pyromaniac (aka SoCal) has lobbed incendiary on both sides, and pointed at the other as the culprit. And the gullible, including, so called mature adults, have become (as kemet says) infantile egomaniacs (thanks Nicole) taking their (Tennis?) balls home.

falzy21 wrote:But none of you have ever even met, soo stop presuming things about each other and get back to some kind of topic, ie what does ths win mean, if anything about which one might be the best

Very certain that elevator "Good Morning"s would be on order.

lydian wrote:Nadal and his fans have been open season on here for years.

There is very little respect for such fantastic athletes and what they bring to the court. They are human, and have their imperfections. As someone I knew on 606 would say Father Time waits for no one, not even the GOATs.

Silver wrote:I honestly think that Novak, Rafa and Roger are all very similar in ability to each other. In that sense, Federer was fortunate to get the lessened competition that he did early on - but he did capitalise on it, and we shouldn't underestimate how difficult it actually is to win three slams in a calendar year, virtually regardless of opponent. He deserves a lot of respect for the statistics that he's compiled, and what he's done for the game. And he'll never be out of the GOAT debate (ever) because of the way he plays, and that's something that everyone else is just going to have to accept. It's worth at least a slam to some people.

Like lydian said, Nadal is a one-off and a similarly unbelievable player. He's done more to revolutionise the technical and tactical aspects of the sport than any other player in the last two decades, far more so than Federer who is essentially an extremely refined 'classical' player. He also deserves huge kudos for consistently having big challenges in his path - but an interesting question that I'd pose is 'how much of a challenge did Federer alone actually constitute?' If Nadal hammers him so easily in the match-up, does that detract from some of his own slam achievements, because he 'only' had to beat Federer in the final? I say no, but then I don't think that Nadal has always had it so easy against Federer, certainly not compared to today's match.

Novak is a phenomenal player in his own right, and is unlucky that he has three players in his way who can all regularly challenge and beat him.

So, to conclude...the GOAT debate rages on! But I can understand both sides of the coin, and see where socal & others are coming from. The domination of Nadal, not just over Federer but also over most of the tour due to his incredible matchplay skills, has to be increasingly respect. He's one of a kind...they both are.

Good post timing and luck with injuries is a big part of success in sports. In Novak's favor you do have the large number of wins that he has achieved on tour against Fed and Nadal. But in all honesty he is too streaky emotionally and has not packed his CV enough to be compared to Fed and Nadal. Nadal's competitive greatness I think puts him a notch of anyone else in the game. But Novak when he is on song is as good as anyone and is the one guy who can challenge and beat Nadal on any surface. I honestly still believe Djokovic is one of the top handful if not the best pure baseliner in the game's history. And I do expect him to improve on his total of 6 and I think he will go down in the top 10 players of the open era.

kemet wrote:

falzy21 wrote:Noone wants to ban you kemet, but you cant call someone infantile for a post and then say you dont want to get involved do you see?
I get it Socals got a divisive opinion and he does make stuff as a wind up sometimes. However we dont get suckered into the trap, its kinda funny sometimes, and you joke about it, but it IS his opinion and hes not insulting anyone on the board for it, you just need to shrug it off im afraid  theres not really another recourse

But I did not call Socal infantile personally, I called the post infantile. Since I am an adult, some of my replies were infantile and I should have followed the tried and true maxim of "if you do not have anything good to say, do not say anything at all."

It would be illogical to call Socal infantile because I do not know him outside of this forum and neither he does me and even the most mature people can make immature arguments or do immature things as well.

As I said, I cannot stand wummery period. I guess this is why I should have simply stayed away as I should not be presumptuous enough to impose my value system on everyone else.

I apologize if I said anything in haste, but I felt like a cornered animal and lashed out at you unfairly.

At the end of the day, Roger Federer, Rafael Nadal, Novak Djokovic, etc. are all very successful people who most likely have no idea who we are in real life, so socal is right, I should not take this so seriously, since I am not going to see any of Roger Federer's prize money and need to keep things in perspective.

Good post kemet, I know you have always been a good poster and not the name calling kind. I do admit it that I like to stick it to fed sometimes but it is not like I really know him or have real animosity for him. He is just my favorite players rival. I know he has done a great deal for the game and deserves his lofty status. (as the #2 best player of this era) He has been the game's biggest draw and has financially helped all of tennis by the attnetion he has brought to the game.

But this will not change the fact that every time he loses I will do dance my merry little jig.

never thought tennis could be seen and followed in the same terms of football hooliganism

naxroy wrote:never thought tennis could be seen and followed in the same terms of football hooliganism

Wow, tell us how you really feel where are the dead bodies?

I just want to check, if we are drawing conclusions about Rafa / Roger from yesterday, I guess Rogers ranking of #8 also tells us that he was ultimately shown inferior to David Ferrer, Tomas Berdych, etc? After all, to extrapolate across the two guys relative merits we have to assume he's currently still at his best, and if so to be ranked behind those guys tells us they are better.

If you conclude that Federer is #8 because he's not at his best then you can't draw anything about Nadal from yesterday.

There's nothing wrong about having an opinion of Rafa / Roger over time, but I can't work out how a match at this stage of their careers tells us anything.

The last few months have really changed my view of tennis history.

I've always thought the idea of a weak era was a bit strong but I've been open to the idea of a weaker opposition for Federer pre-08.

I now feel convinced that idea is wrong. The reason for this is looking at the present and recent past.

Federer's finals against Baghdatis and an ageing Agassi can be used to show how his stats have been padded. Yet Nadal has had recent slam finals against Ferrer and now Wawrinka, Masters finals against Isner and Raonic, and all we can say is that Rafa's standing in the game is growing as a result.

Federer had no opposition before 08? Who exactly is Rafa's opposition now? There's one guy on the whole tour who gives him a headache and that player is proving to be too emotionally streaky to challenge consistently. Let's be honest, as soon as Novak is out of a tournament, you can pretty much guarantee a Rafa win.

So the present is no different to 04-07. All that's changed is the identity of the player dominating.

This excellent post has the benefit of being written with perspective. It's available to everyone but only a few have the capacity to make use of it.

The problem with debating here is that it's as easy to explain these concepts to some posters as it is to explain the rainbow to someone blind from birth.

By the end of 2007, the top five read
Federer
Nadal
Djokovic
Davydenko
Ferrer

So the world #2 & 3 were 20, and 21-year old's, while the guy used to exemplify that the current era isnt a strong one was ranked five.

Quite remarkable that Federer's contemporaries blew out at 24-26. At the exact same time the new kids on the block arrived... Murray, Berdych and Gasquet managed victories over Federer as teenagers at a time when poor Hewitt and Roddick went a combined - 0-21 against the grand master... Of course it's possible Federer just had bad days at the exact time he met the kids... which is after all generally what happened when he met Nadal (unless he won)...

Kingraf, the big indictment against Fed's peers is that they couldn't beat him in a slam.

Murray didn't beat Fed in a slam until 2013 when Fed was 31.

Djoko beat him in 08 but then not until Sep 10 when Fed was 29. He also suffered slam losses in '11 and '12 and lost his #1 ranking to Fed too.

It's difficult to argue that Fed's results would have been drastically different if Novak and Andy had been his age.

Looking at Federer's 2004-2007 seasons, it's quite noteworthy that He went an incredible (and it was incredible)... 345-24. Unheard of consistency, and there is a real possibility that you could have put peak Sampras, Borg and Laver in front of him, and he would have simply cut through them, that's how hot he was. But... Of those 24 losses, 8 were by way of Nadal. One Djokovic, one Murray, One Gasquet, one Murray, one Berdych. So over half his defeats in his most dominant period came at the hands of players under the age of 21. Quite a remarkable stat, that.

HMM - I'm not doing any crystal ball gazing, so I'm not trying to belittle Rog's achievements at his absolute zenith... But I'm not sure your age critique hold water... Djokovic was 23 when he beat Federer in 2010, roughly the same age Federer was when he beat Roddick, Hewitt et al for his first major booty haul (2004 season)...

Note how a 26-year old Roger somehow conspired to lose in successive tournaments to Guillermo Canas, on hard courts, in straight sets. Not saying Djokovic or Murray halt hos haul (really, just read up, never said that) - I just find it weird that Federer's cabinet, as Socal called them, couldn't muster the wins at a time when 30-year old clay courters could roll through in straights, and 18-year olds seemed to find Federer on an off day.

Kingraf - great stats!

And it's a good question you raise but unfortunately one that can only be answered with speculation.

Part could be the younger players developed on the slower conditions which were then on the tour and games perfectly tooled for it.

Part could be they didn't have the mental baggage in the match up (players like Gasquet and Berdych didn't have ongoing success against Federer, so this could be a factor in the early encounters).

It could also be that they are better players. I wouldn't dismiss that, it just can't be proven by statistics alone.

But my broader point is this: How can racking up slams against weaker, inconsistent or ageing opponents be viewed us evidence of greatness for Rafa but evidence of a weaker period for Federer? What is the objective evidence that would prove Novak of 2013 is better than, say, the Hewitt of 2004/2005? The Andy of 12/13 better than the Safin of 04/05?

HM Murdoch wrote:

Federer had no opposition before 08? Who exactly is Rafa's opposition now? There's one guy on the whole tour who gives him a headache and that player is proving to be too emotionally streaky to challenge consistently. Let's be honest, as soon as Novak is out of a tournament, you can pretty much guarantee a Rafa win.

So the present is no different to 04-07. All that's changed is the identity of the player dominating.

I would disagree with this sentiment HM based on largely Rafa's health. The last 24 months for me have been one of transition to which no young talent has really come forward and taken advantage and that is what has frustrated me. Granted it was good for me to see Murray win his Slams in this period, but he hasn't blown the world away like I would've wanted him to because that was a period for dominance. As is this period too. IF Rafa can stay health there is no telling how far he can go. We have yet to see him against a 'new' Murray yet I would doubt Murray could turn the tide like a focused and fit Djokovic can.

The same faces have dominated the tour since 2008 and that trend doesn't look like changing this year neither. Granted 2004-2007 was full of one genius and bunch of injured misfits. You have Federer and Djokovic struggling for consistent form. Nadal and Murray might struggle with fitness. If the young crop can't take advantage of that then there is no hope for the game.

LK, I'm not sure we are in that much disagreement!

The lack of young players breaking through is a peculiarity. In most other periods there have been a couple of good youngsters in the top ten. The current state of affairs infuriates me too.

But, as things stand, if Rafa is fit and Novak falls early, who do we see troubling him?

HMM - you would know that there is no objective way of comparing cross-era players. And when it does happen, the modern player always loses... After all - Nadal and co get dumped out of Wimby in the 90s, but Sampras somehow wins on clay in Homogeneous conditions. Messi gets kicked to the rafters in the 70s, but Pele scores a gazillion goals in the modern era. Vitali Klitschko gets knocked out in the 90s, but the Joe Frazier who was tossed around by 6'3 George Foreman somehow beats an even bigger Vladimir. Even poor Bolt somehow loses a second differential just by giving Jesse Owens Puma running cleats...

KR - Ha! That's true. In particular, I'm always amazed at the untouchable nature of Pele's pedestal.

But I'm not trying to elevate any era over another. The more I even attempt to compare, the more futile it seems.

I'm just pointing out that similar situations are being interpreted in different ways.

Murdoch & LK - I find it interesting that you hold little hope of Murray troubling Rafa. if we dig a bit deeper into the Murray Nadal rivalry, which on paper is very one sided, we see a 5-6 HC head to head. That's very close. We of course see a totally one sided clay head to head, which will never change. And on grass they've met 3 times I think, Rafa winning all 3... However Murray's grass record over the last 2 years is exceptional, he's won everything. Rafa has struggled, so that could be interesting.

Of course, all this happened years ago as they have bizarrely avoided each other - as well as injuries of course. So we have nothing to go on really in terms of how they'll match up nowadays.

If - and it's still an if as far as I'm concerned - Murray recovers tennis, agility and fitness wise to the level he was at in 2012 and the first half of 2013, then it could be interesting. After all, he managed to turn the Djokovic rivalry into pretty much a 50-50 match at a time when Novak was the main man on the tour.

Of course with any surgery and time out the game, he might never again reach the level he was at when reaching 4 slam finals in a row, winning 2, Olympic gold and all that....Watching the AO I thought he looked only 75% of that player, but if he does fully recover I think it could be a fireworks match up.