Rank the 'Tier 2' Greats

by HM Murdock Mon 02 Feb 2015, 12:27 pm

First topic message reminder :

Time for a subjective question!

Djokovic's eighth win yesterday moves him level with Connors, Lendl and Agassi on the Open Era slam wins league table.

How do rank this sub-group of 'greats'?

	Connors	Lendl	Agassi	Djokovic
Weeks at 1	268	270	101	132*
Tour final wins	1	5	1	4
Masters titles	17	22	17	20
Career slam	No	No	Yes	No

Lendl and Connors are tough to split. I'll give the nod to Jimmy for longevity and amassing his slam total despite hardly ever playing AO and missing RG for 5 of his peak years.

Then Agassi and Djokovic are tough to split.

Agassi has the career slam and won Wimbledon on fast, low bouncing grass in an era of huge servers.

Djokovic leads on weeks at 1, Masters and YEC and is, I would suggest, more dominant than Agassi was.

By a whisker, I'd say Andre.

So for me its:
1) Connors
2) Lendl
3) Agassi
4) Djokovic

How would you rank them?

by socal1976 Sun 08 Feb 2015, 5:35 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
Silver wrote:
socal1976 wrote:The fact is that there is an interesting piece of revisionist history being made that we are used to by Federer fans at this point. The idea that Fed kept players like Nalbandian, Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin from winning more slams and being considered as great players. It is laughable Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray passed those guys up. The rankings don't lie a 19 year old Djokovic was closer to Fed 07 year end rankings than all the players that should have been in their prime like Nalby, Roddick, and Safin. The only one of those 4 who can claim to have been stunted by Fed is Roddick because he lost a number of slam finals and probably would have one another slam or two if not for Federer. Safin was nowhere in the picture, Nalbandian failed due to poor conditioning and work ethic and Hewitt had a host of injuries.

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer. They were losing to other guys before even reaching Federer. Safin and Nalbandian struggled even when healthy to stay in the top 10. Hewitt was unfortunate with injury and even when he had long streaks of health he could never return to close to the top of the game. Roddick probably would have if not for federer won a slam or two more but is not what I would consider a great player.

The weak era guys were weak not because of Roger, it wasn't like they were making all these slam semis and finals and only Roger was beating them. By the mid 2000s a host of guys were knocking them out of slams.

This is a good post. There's no way that the competition back then was as strong as it has been over the last 5 years or so, even looking beyond the top four who've dominated. I'd take current Berdych and Ferrer over a lot of the 2004-2007 crew.

There is one caveat though. As in any era, you can still get the odd player who gets on a hot streak and becomes extremely difficult to beat in a tournament. Safin in 2005 is the obvious example, he took Federer out of the Australian smack in the middle of his peak period, and he played a truly magnificent match to do so. Gonzo was an average player, but at the same tournament in 2007 he was on fire - he smashed Nadal to pieces before he made the final, the same Nadal that would reach the W final that year (and had done so the previous, too). Del Potro in 2009 is another decent example of a guy who came from nowhere to be a huge threat at slams, although he was later.

On average, the competition was much worse. But occasionally you got a slam finalist who was very tough to beat, even for Federer and Nadal at that time. Not every slam was a gimme. But! That's not to inflate Federer's achievements, Novak has had it much harder and generally speaking the competition aside from Nadal was nothing to write home about.

We also shouldn't let discussion of competition levels detract from the fact that one man won 3 slams in a year...three times. Even with worse competition, that is one hell of a feat of fitness and skill, and sometimes I feel it gets overlooked. Same for Nadal in 2010, and Novak in 2011.

No it's not a good post. In fact it's the usual piece of garbage that socal every so often feels the compelling need to write to discredit Fed's achievements.

Socal's wrote:

In fact, Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combine for a total of 2 grandslam final losses to Roger Federer. So this idea that because of the seismic tsunami of Federer kept these players from attaining greatness is absolute rubbish made up to simultaneously inflate federer's competition and Federer

Now is that correct? Possibly. Does this reasoning make any sense? No. Why would you focus only at finals losses, if you want to genuinely convince yourself and other of such point, and at the same time ignore the losses in sf, qf stages etc. etc. that are equally relevant for this discussion? Socal's analysis is superficial and biased as usual. In a word: garbage.

H2H Federer vs Hewitt;

2011 AUS vs SUI WG Play-Off
Australia Grass RR Federer, Roger
5-7, 7-6(5), 6-2, 6-3
2010 Halle
Germany Grass F Hewitt, Lleyton
3-6, 7-6(4), 6-4 Stats
2010 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-3, 6-4 Stats
2009 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard R32 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 7-5, 6-4 Stats
2009 ATP World Tour Masters 1000 Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2008 Wimbledon
Great Britain Grass R16 Federer, Roger
7-6(7), 6-2, 6-4 Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Cincinnati
OH, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-7(7), 7-6(1) Stats
2007 ATP Masters Series Canada
Montreal, Canada Hard Q Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3 Stats
2005 Wimbledon
England Grass S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-2 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0 Stats
2004 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(1), 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay S Federer, Roger
6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2003 AUS v. SUI WG SF
Melbourne, Australia Hard RR Hewitt, Lleyton
5-7, 2-6, 7-6(4), 7-5, 6-1
2002 Tennis Masters Cup
Shanghai, China Hard S Hewitt, Lleyton
7-5, 5-7, 7-5 Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Paris
France Carpet Q Hewitt, Lleyton
6-4, 6-4 Stats
2002 ATP Masters Series Miami
FL, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2001 's-Hertogenbosch
The Netherlands Grass S Hewitt, Lleyton
6-4, 6-2 Stats

No your analysis garbage as usual JK, and your manners are even worse. The fact is are you telling me that if Roger didn't beat hewitt in the R16 or R32 that Hewitt would have gone on to win the tournament? If your seeding is so low that you play Roger in the first couple of rounds of a slam and lose you probably aren't one of the guys favored to win the whole thing. Or do you want us to believe that Hewitt if he beat Federer in the round of R32 would have lifted the trophy. The guy couldn't win against the tour, that is why his seeding was so low he played Fed in the early rounds. And that is precisely my point he fell of the face off the earth once other better players came around and couldn't even maintain a decent ranking.

FACTS ARE HEWITT LOST ONE GRANDSLAM FINAL TO ROGER. If he was so prevented from greatness only by the wonderful and mythical Federer you would think like Murray for example he would at least get consistently to the semis and finals at the least. But that isn't what happened.

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 08 Feb 2015, 10:33 am

Ok Socal I got what you are saying. Weak era players were prevented to win slams by Federer ONLY when they met Federer in a final and lost. In any other case, if as an example they lost to federer in semifinals and qfs, they would have lost anyway to another opponent as a matter of fact and thus they were not really prevented by Federer to win slams. Uhm, interesting.......

by socal1976 Sun 08 Feb 2015, 11:58 am

How many slams did Hewitt lose in those years to some one not named Federer? You are citing losses Hewitt had in the round of 16, 32, and quaterfinals as evidence that Federer stopped Hewitt from winning a significant amount of slams more. Interesting Hewitt was ranked 20th in the world by the end of 06, why not say that 19 players prevented him from being ranked number one in 2006.

Safin is even worse his ranking in 04 was 4th, in 05 it was 12th, in 06 he was 26th, and at the end of 07 he was 56th in the world. That is right 55 players prevented Safin from being number #1 in in 07 not just Roger Federer.

If you have a low enough of ranking to play the world #1 in the R32 or R16, hell even in the quarters you aren't one of the favorites are you?

by Jeremy_Kyle Sun 08 Feb 2015, 1:23 pm

Hewitt was ranked nearly costantly around or inside the top 5 from 2001 till the end of 2005 right? Only for a brief period of year 2004 did he leave the top 10 as a result of injuries, correct?

So according to this data:

2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3 Stats
2005 Wimbledon
England Grass S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-2 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0 Stats
2004 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(1), 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay S Federer, Roger
6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4 Stats

Hewit (sorry I am not going to to do the research you should have done by yourself re. Safin,Nalbandian, Roddick and Others) was sent out of the latter stages of a slam, by Federer for 5 times. Doesn't this mean having a big impact on a player's career?

Your facts are wrong socal! But since you don't bother to do minimal researching work before airing random ideas on a board, even calling them facts seems a little too much for me.

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 5:39 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Hewitt was ranked nearly costantly around or inside the top 5 from 2001 till the end of 2005 right? Only for a brief period of year 2004 did he leave the top 10 as a result of injuries, correct?

So according to this data:

2005 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard S Federer, Roger
6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3 Stats
2005 Wimbledon
England Grass S Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4, 7-6(4) Stats
2005 ATP Masters Series Indian Wells
California, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-2, 6-4, 6-4 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard F Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-2 Stats
2004 Tennis Masters Cup
Houston, TX, USA Hard RR Federer, Roger
6-3, 6-4 Stats
2004 US Open
NY, U.S.A. Hard F Federer, Roger
6-0, 7-6(3), 6-0 Stats
2004 Wimbledon
England Grass Q Federer, Roger
6-1, 6-7(1), 6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 ATP Masters Series Hamburg
Germany Clay S Federer, Roger
6-0, 6-4 Stats
2004 Australian Open
Australia Hard R16 Federer, Roger
4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4 Stats

Hewit (sorry I am not going to to do the research you should have done by yourself re. Safin,Nalbandian, Roddick and Others) was sent out of the latter stages of a slam, by Federer for 5 times. Doesn't this mean having a big impact on a player's career?

Your facts are wrong socal! But since you don't bother to do minimal researching work before airing random ideas on a board, even calling them facts seems a little too much for me.

What fact is wrong, the fact that Hewitt, Safin, and Nalbandian combined lost two grandslam finals to Roger Federer. Please explain to me how that is wrong? No you are wrong because this statement I made is an irrefutable fact. You want to claim losses to fed in quarters and round of sixteen or semis or whatever caused them not to be great that is fine. If you want to bring up losses to Fed at masters that is fine, I never mentioned anything about losses in earlier rounds of slams or masters events. But since you don't understand english I will explain it to you. I specifically mentioned grandslam finals and none of your research disproves my assertion which focused specifically on Grandslam finals not losses to federer in the round of 16, semis, or quarters I made no assertion about that. So you are just lying nothing I stated was wrong. You failed to disprove a single fact or factual assertion. But you are rather loudmouthed about it.

Like I said the fact that Hewitt was ranked 20th in the world in 2006, and Safin was 50 something in the world in 2007 I am sure was all to the wonder of Federer's greatness or maybe it was just down to the fact that 20 some odd players were better than Hewitt and 50 some odd better than Safin in those years. I am sure in those years Federer knocked them both out of every tournament.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 8:29 am

Your facts are wrong because are picked and presented selectively and arbitrarily to prove a wrong point. And btw, you know it very well..

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 10:34 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Your facts are wrong because are picked and presented selectively and arbitrarily to prove a wrong point. And btw, you know it very well..

No the fact is not wrong. It is a fact, that Hewitt, Nalby, and Safin combined have 2 grandslam final losses to Federer. You can't dispute it, you can't claim it is wrong; because it is true. So you can bring up masters records or earlier slam losses if you like but it doesn't make my fact wrong because my statement didn't address their losses in anything but grandslam finals. You can voice your OPINION that picked it selectively or arbitrarily. But your opinion doesn't change the fact that it is true and verifiably so.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 10:45 am

I just claim that is either stupid or disingenuous to forget that the same guys had numerous defeats in semifinals and quarter finals to Federer which are very relevant and should be considered for this discussion. Are you ok with it?

by bogbrush Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:00 am

socal1976 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.
So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there
No, I'm saying there are no worthwhile fluctuations unless one considers the presence or absence of the peak GOAT.
This is totally arbitrary and almost a comically illogical like of reasoning.
It's comes across as a desperate attempt to say 'ok I accidentally said something which would indicate that harder competition levels can make it harder to win Slams in certain time periods/years' and when you realised that this is exactly the sort of argument you've been rubbishing and directing ad hominem attacks at Socal for you try cover your ground, 'this argument that competition levels can only fluctuate is only significant enough when we consider specifically getting to number 1 when my favourite player was in his prime.'

Bingo IMBL, you logically completely tear apart BB's argument and the arguments of those who claim that competition faced in slams is always the same and there is no difference lets say between playing Nadal in Grandslam final or Djokovic and or Baggy or Phillipoussis. BB knocks the level of competition in recent years faced by Nadal and Djoko while simultaneously pumping up the competition faced by Federer in 04-07. By his own standards of "a goat or near goat, at or near their full pomp" then Nadal taking it away from Federer in 08-10 and Djokovic taking it away from Nadal in 2011 are much greater accomplishments than Federer taking it away from whoever exactly he took it from.

Weird interpretation, which I guess means the conclusion is nonsense (unsurprisingly).

No, I don't ramp Federers early competition, I simply observe that because his standard was astonishingly high it's fair to cut his contemporaries some slack. He emerged onto a sport unready for his elevated standard and, at his physical peak of powers, laid waste. Give the guys a break I say!

My central point is that these relativism-based arguments are absurd (because there's 4 Slams won a year, every year, and how they're shared out proves nothing) but I am prepared to use my eyes and brain and come to conclusions free of false logic and received wisdom. This is how I earn my living. I'm good at it.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:06 am

One more fact to your attention Socal. Do you remember how many grand slam finals did Murray lose to Nadal? Did you know the answer is zero? So according to your brilliant logic, Nadal didn't play any role in keeping Murray "from attaining greatness". Is that right? Can we still believe Murray played in a Golden era if Nadal did not play any role in his career?

Keep on digging your own hole Socal...........

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:08 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:I just claim that is either stupid or disingenuous to forget that the same guys had numerous defeats in semifinals and quarter finals to Federer which are very relevant and should be considered for this discussion. Are you ok with it?

What makes you think if Federer didn't beat them in the quarters or semis that they would have won that match or would have gone to win the final? I mean as I stated Hewitt in 2006 and 2007 was rated number 20 and 21 in the world, Safin in 2007 was ranked 50 something. I mean are we to expect them to win a lot of slams in 06 and 07 if they can't even come close to the top ten? Did Safin finish 56th in the world because of how great Roger was or were there just 50 players or so better than him? The reason I chose grandslam finals is because it is safe to assume if you win that match as opposed to lose it you will have an additional slam to your credit, you can't do that for losses in the quarters, semis, and Round of 16. Whose to say if Federer didn't knock him out in the semis or quarters another top pro in top form would knock them out, or knock them out a round later.

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:11 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:One more fact to your attention Socal. Do you remember how many grand slams final did Murray lose to Nadal? Did you know the answer is zero? So according to your brilliant logic, Nadal didn't play any role in keeping Murray "from attaining greatness". Is that righ Socal? Can we still believe Murray played in a Golden era if Nadal did not play any role in his career?

Keep on digging your own hole Socal...........

Interestingly Murray has lost 3 slam finals to Djokovic, and I believe three to Federer off the top of my head. So murray has lost more grandslam finals to Federer than Hewitt, Nalby, and Safin combined. By the way Djokovic from 2004-2007 lost as many slam finals to Federer as either Safin and Hewitt did in their entire lives. You are the one digging your own hole by claiming a fact is wrong because you don't like it, what are you an Alabama Republican?

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:17 am

bogbrush wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:
bogbrush wrote:Well I thought what I said was very clearly that. Minor fluctuations can be discarded as within the margin of error or not worth talking about, seismic shocks should be recognised as such.
So if you feel that there's been a big fluctuation in difficulty of competition- whether that be from one year to the next of a number of years to the next- you think that is worth talking about ?
Yep, I do agree with you there
No, I'm saying there are no worthwhile fluctuations unless one considers the presence or absence of the peak GOAT.
This is totally arbitrary and almost a comically illogical like of reasoning.
It's comes across as a desperate attempt to say 'ok I accidentally said something which would indicate that harder competition levels can make it harder to win Slams in certain time periods/years' and when you realised that this is exactly the sort of argument you've been rubbishing and directing ad hominem attacks at Socal for you try cover your ground, 'this argument that competition levels can only fluctuate is only significant enough when we consider specifically getting to number 1 when my favourite player was in his prime.'

Bingo IMBL, you logically completely tear apart BB's argument and the arguments of those who claim that competition faced in slams is always the same and there is no difference lets say between playing Nadal in Grandslam final or Djokovic and or Baggy or Phillipoussis. BB knocks the level of competition in recent years faced by Nadal and Djoko while simultaneously pumping up the competition faced by Federer in 04-07. By his own standards of "a goat or near goat, at or near their full pomp" then Nadal taking it away from Federer in 08-10 and Djokovic taking it away from Nadal in 2011 are much greater accomplishments than Federer taking it away from whoever exactly he took it from.
Weird interpretation, which I guess means the conclusion is nonsense (unsurprisingly).

No, I don't ramp Federers early competition, I simply observe that because his standard was astonishingly high it's fair to cut his contemporaries some slack. He emerged onto a sport unready for his elevated standard and, at his physical peak of powers, laid waste. Give the guys a break I say!

My central point is that these relativism-based arguments are absurd (because there's 4 Slams won a year, every year, and how they're shared out proves nothing) but I am prepared to use my eyes and brain and come to conclusions free of false logic and received wisdom. This is how I earn my living. I'm good at it.

Interestingly, as I noted Djokovic has as many slam final losses to federer in his heyday as either Safin and Hewitt and one more than Nalby. And he was a teenager at the time so what exactly are their excuses? I would believe your idea of Hurricane Federer if Safin, Hewitt, and Nalby were routinely getting to slam finals and losing to Federer alone. Or if they were maintaining a high ranking and beating up the rest of the tour all year round and losing to Federer. But by 2006 the peak of Federer's greatness these guys weren't anywhere near the top ten. (safin and hewitt). The only one that came make that claim that Federer stunted his trophy case is Roddick. Because he actually lost a number big slam finals to Fed and maintained a high ranking throughout the whole period. If not for Federer I think it would be fair to say that Roddick would have a slam or two more. But not in regards to Hewitt, Nalby, or Safin who were passed up by the pack and not just Roger.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:24 am

socal1976 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:One more fact to your attention Socal. Do you remember how many grand slams final did Murray lose to Nadal? Did you know the answer is zero? So according to your brilliant logic, Nadal didn't play any role in keeping Murray "from attaining greatness". Is that righ Socal? Can we still believe Murray played in a Golden era if Nadal did not play any role in his career?

Keep on digging your own hole Socal...........

Interestingly Murray has lost 3 slam finals to Djokovic, and I believe three to Federer off the top of my head. So murray has lost more grandslam finals to Federer than Hewitt, Nalby, and Safin combined. By the way Djokovic from 2004-2007 lost as many slam finals to Federer as either Safin and Hewitt did in their entire lives. You are the one digging your own hole by claiming a fact is wrong because you don't like it, what are you an Alabama Republican?

OK now I am learning something here. Murray has had to compete for slams against Djokovic and Federer, thus he has been playing in a strong era (according to socal's logic Nadal is not relevant to evaluate Murray's slam performance). Hewitt instead competed against Federer, Safin, Roddick etc. but since Djokovic wasn't around, his era is considered as weak. You don't feel the ridiculous of it all Socal?

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 11:51 am

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
Jeremy_Kyle wrote:One more fact to your attention Socal. Do you remember how many grand slams final did Murray lose to Nadal? Did you know the answer is zero? So according to your brilliant logic, Nadal didn't play any role in keeping Murray "from attaining greatness". Is that righ Socal? Can we still believe Murray played in a Golden era if Nadal did not play any role in his career?

Keep on digging your own hole Socal...........

Interestingly Murray has lost 3 slam finals to Djokovic, and I believe three to Federer off the top of my head. So murray has lost more grandslam finals to Federer than Hewitt, Nalby, and Safin combined. By the way Djokovic from 2004-2007 lost as many slam finals to Federer as either Safin and Hewitt did in their entire lives. You are the one digging your own hole by claiming a fact is wrong because you don't like it, what are you an Alabama Republican?

OK now I am learning something here. Murray has had to compete for slams against Djokovic and Federer, thus he has been playing in a strong era (according to socal's logic Nadal is not relevant to evaluate Murray's slam performance). Hewitt instead competed against Federer, Safin, Roddick etc. but since Djokovic wasn't around, his era is considered as weak. You don't feel the ridiculous of it all Socal?

No Murray competed against three great players for slams, two in their absolute peak, and the GOAT a little passed his peak but still good enough to win slams. Hewitt never won a slam after the rise of Federer and played in one slam final in all Fed's heyday.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:11 pm

Yes Murray did compete against Nadal even if they never met in slam finals. Did Nadal prevent Murray to win more? Possibly. We don't know for sure but with enough certainty we can say that Nadal played a role in making competition tougher for Murray and thus slam victories harder. isn't it?

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:14 pm

Jeremy_Kyle wrote:Yes Murray did compete against Nadal even if they never met in slam finals. Did Nadal prevent Murray to win more? Possibly. We don't know for sure but with enough certainty we can say that Nadal played a role in making competition tougher for Murray and thus slam victories harder. isn't it?

JK, I already stated that for Roddick I do agree that Fed since they played in so many slam finals it is safe to assume he would have a slam or two more. The guy maintained a top ranking and fought his way deep into a number of USOs and Wimbeldons. If you want to compare consistency and maintaining a top ranking and being there at the working end of slams you can't compare Hewitt to Murray or Murray to Safin. Murray already has way more semis, grandslam finals, and has kept a top 4 ranking now for 6 or 7 years. Murray is considered the weak link among the big 4 and Hewitt was the top dog of the pre-fed era.

by HM Murdock Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:19 pm

There can't be much doubt that Novak and Andy are superior players to those of Federer's generation. They replaced them in the rankings at a time when you'd expect Federer's generation to be around their primes.

But let's not forget that Andy didn't beat Federer in a slam until Federer was 31.

In the 12 Djokovic v Federer matches they have played since 2011, when Novak is in his prime and Federer is advancing further into his 30s, it is only 7-5 to Novak.

Even in Novak's banner year of 2011, he lost to Federer at RG and was a swing of a racquet away from losing at USO too.

So I doubt that they would be regularly thwarting the Federer of 2004-2007. Maybe he is being pushed harder and not stomping all over the competition. But he's probably still winning.

A slam here or there perhaps but I don't think Federer's slam total is vastly inflated.

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:43 pm

To HM:
I think Federer at his best in the last 5 years is not too far away at all from Federer at his best in his prime... but when he's older he reaches his best less often.

So basically-
The amount Federer at his best (prime) > Federer at his best (post-peak) is much smaller than Federer mean average performance (prime) > Federer mean average performance (post-prime)

Thus we have to be careful to make judgements comparing how the same player would have done facing a player at different ages. It could be he reaches SF/F less often because of off days, but when reaching that stage and has a good day his performance is still up there.

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:50 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:There can't be much doubt that Novak and Andy are superior players to those of Federer's generation. They replaced them in the rankings at a time when you'd expect Federer's generation to be around their primes.

But let's not forget that Andy didn't beat Federer in a slam until Federer was 31.

In the 12 Djokovic v Federer matches they have played since 2011, when Novak is in his prime and Federer is advancing further into his 30s, it is only 7-5 to Novak.

Even in Novak's banner year of 2011, he lost to Federer at RG and was a swing of a racquet away from losing at USO too.

So I doubt that they would be regularly thwarting the Federer of 2004-2007. Maybe he is being pushed harder and not stomping all over the competition. But he's probably still winning.

A slam here or there perhaps but I don't think Federer's slam total is vastly inflated.

Pretty much concur with all that. Except lets remember how close Djokovic of 07 ran Federer that year. He really as a 19 year old should have beaten or at least taken Fed to 5 sets in the open final. He had set points in every set and ended up losing due simply to immaturity and choking. He also beat Fed and Nadal on back to back days in Canada. Your analysis would be correct if you matched peak Fed vs. Peak Djoko. But the Djoko that played Fed in 06 and 07 was prior to his peak. I actually agree that Fed slam totals are at most inflated by his weaker competition by at most a slam or two if you want to really push it maybe 3. But I think peak Novak playing in those guys would be nearly as dominant as Fed was. Remember a teenage Djoko shoved them all aside in the rankings and finished the year #3 against peak Fed.

Also remember that Nadal was way off of his best on faster surfaces. He could match Fed on the clay but was not his equal on grass or hardcourts till 2008. So Nadal was around in 04-07 but he was principally a great clay courter who could play on the other surfaces but was not able to get through the draws routinely enough to trouble Federer's totals.

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 12:56 pm

socal1976 wrote:But I think peak Novak playing in those guys would be nearly as dominant as Fed was. Remember a teenage Djoko shoved them all aside in the rankings and finished the year #3 against peak Fed.

I do think so too actually, if Djokovic and Federer swapped birth dates, I actually think Djokovic would have significantly more Slams.

by HM Murdock Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:00 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:I think Federer at his best in the last 5 years is not too far away at all from Federer at his best in his prime... but when he's older he reaches his best less often.

He's a different player now. Better serve, more experience but a step slower and much less consistent.

None of this is scientific but if 30+ Federer is holding is own against Andy and Novak in their prime, I think giving him back the extra step and greater consistency of his younger days means he wins more than he loses. Maybe quite a bit more.

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:04 pm

He's a better player than Djokovic and Murray, so he'd definitely win more than he loses; no doubt.

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:05 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I think Federer at his best in the last 5 years is not too far away at all from Federer at his best in his prime... but when he's older he reaches his best less often.
He's a different player now. Better serve, more experience but a step slower and much less consistent.

None of this is scientific but if 30+ Federer is holding is own against Andy and Novak in their prime, I think giving him back the extra step and greater consistency of his younger days means he wins more than he loses. Maybe quite a bit more.

I don't think anyone of us, not me or IMBL or BS who think the competition weaker pre-08/07 think that Fed isn't one of the greatest players and on the very very short list for GOAT honors. But we also are realistic in gauging the mid and early 2000 guys against other generations of great players and realizing that it wasn't just Federer that kept them from greatness. I mean Murray is a good example the guy isn't as good as Nadal and Djokovic. But he at least beats them at masters sometimes, he at least wins a slam or two and consistently holds his ranking high. This is what Safin, Hewitt, and Nalby could not do. And Roddick failed for the most part as well not because he didn't bring it just because he was very one dimensional. I mean Safin finished 56th in the world in 2007 is that because Hurricane Roger knocked him out of every tournament. Hewitt post 2005 can't even maintain a top ten ranking. Nalbandian stagnates and Roddick gets surpassed by Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic in what should have been his prime.

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:09 pm

I think HM agrees with you there Socal (from what I've read before)

by bogbrush Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:10 pm

So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

by Belovedluckyboy Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:13 pm

Can't compare the speed and power of a 30+ year old with that when he's younger. Watch Fed during his peak in 2006 vs Rafa at TMC SF in Shanghai, note how unbelievable Fed's( and Rafa's) speed and footwork and power! He's no where near those now, Rafa too! Both are older now and slower. In fact they had the best footwork and speed around the court back then, better than Novak and Murray now. Fed was unbelievable in 2006, just like Rafa was unbelievable on clay during 2008, especially at the FO, and during 2010.

by socal1976 Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:18 pm

bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

Its a tennis forum, BB we are grown people talking about how well somebody strikes a fuzzy yellow ball. It is all a triviality.

by Belovedluckyboy Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:28 pm

I don't agree with SoCal, at least not fully. I don't think Novak was that good on grass to win Wimbledon the way Fed won his five in a row from 2003-2007. Please don't discount the grass goat on grass! Also, who says Rafa wasn't there to challenge Fed on surfaces other than clay? He pushed peak Fed to the limit on grass at Wimbledon in 2007, and that wasn't the peak Rafa on grass yet ( Rafa peaked on grass in 2008/2010).

Novak in 2007 lost to peak Fed in straight sets at USO, even though he had set points, but don't forget a Fed past his peak, in 2011, had match points vs a peak Novak at the USO, and a peak Novak needed to go five sets to beat a Fed who's past his prime! So, we have to see both sides of the coin, not just one side to suit our own views. Fed at his best is better than anyone of these current players on fast surfaces and on grass; Novak may be better than Fed on slower HC surfaces. On clay I think it's 50:50. I also think that a peak Rafa is better than Novak on clay and grass, but Novak is better on the HCs, Rafa vs Fed? Rafa better than Fed on clay and slow HCS; Fed better on quick HCs and on grass.

by HM Murdock Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:32 pm

bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

I hate it when reality bites this hard.

I'm up to 3,483 posts now. Even at 1 minute per message, that's two and a half days of my life gone.

Given that far too many messages are preceded by research to prove or disprove an utterly irrelevant point, and therefore take considerably more than a minute, I dread to think how much of my life I've let ebb away.

by HM Murdock Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:37 pm

Belovedluckyboy wrote: Please don't discount the grass goat on grass!

And please don't discount The Greatest Plexicushion Player Of The Open Era.... hmm, that doesn't have the same ring to it, does it? Wink

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Fed at his best is better than anyone of these current players on fast surfaces and on grass; Novak may be better than Fed on slower HC surfaces. On clay I think it's 50:50. I also think that a peak Rafa is better than Novak on clay and grass, but Novak is better on the HCs, Rafa vs Fed? Rafa better than Fed on clay and slow HCS; Fed better on quick HCs and on grass.

Pretty much how I see it too.

by Gerry SA Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:40 pm

socal1976 wrote:
HM Murdoch wrote:
It Must Be Love wrote:I think Federer at his best in the last 5 years is not too far away at all from Federer at his best in his prime... but when he's older he reaches his best less often.
He's a different player now. Better serve, more experience but a step slower and much less consistent.

None of this is scientific but if 30+ Federer is holding is own against Andy and Novak in their prime, I think giving him back the extra step and greater consistency of his younger days means he wins more than he loses. Maybe quite a bit more.

I don't think anyone of us, not me or IMBL or BS who think the competition weaker pre-08/07 think that Fed isn't one of the greatest players and on the very very short list for GOAT honors. But we also are realistic in gauging the mid and early 2000 guys against other generations of great players and realizing that it wasn't just Federer that kept them from greatness. I mean Murray is a good example the guy isn't as good as Nadal and Djokovic. But he at least beats them at masters sometimes, he at least wins a slam or two and consistently holds his ranking high. This is what Safin, Hewitt, and Nalby could not do. And Roddick failed for the most part as well not because he didn't bring it just because he was very one dimensional. I mean Safin finished 56th in the world in 2007 is that because Hurricane Roger knocked him out of every tournament. Hewitt post 2005 can't even maintain a top ten ranking. Nalbandian stagnates and Roddick gets surpassed by Murray, Nadal, and Djokovic in what should have been his prime.

You fail to factor in how all courts are pretty much standardized in the current form of tennis. Would Murray have a consistent top 5 ranking if he played on the super fast courts back in 2001-2006? Hell no.

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:45 pm

HM, you don't think it's improved your debating skills or thought process at all ?

by HM Murdock Mon 09 Feb 2015, 1:58 pm

It Must Be Love wrote:HM, you don't think it's improved your debating skills or thought process at all ?

Saying my thought process has improved is a bit like saying Djokovic has improved at the net - it says more about the starting point than the end point!

by bogbrush Mon 09 Feb 2015, 2:16 pm

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

Its a tennis forum, BB we are grown people talking about how well somebody strikes a fuzzy yellow ball. It is all a triviality.

I know. Terrifying isn't it?

And I speak as one of the prime afflicted, I'm certainly not taking any high ground here.

Someone - can't remember who - said tennis was a brilliant game to play and a bit dodgy to watch. I'd only add that this is true unless you have an intense partisan reason to side to one player. I can't watch any match without picking a side, it's like without it there's really no point. Surely it's this which leads us to these insane debates.

Murdoch has criticised himself in the light of this but tbh he's a country mile ahead of almost everyone else when it comes down to it.

by bogbrush Mon 09 Feb 2015, 2:17 pm

HM Murdoch wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.
I hate it when reality bites this hard.

I'm up to 3,483 posts now. Even at 1 minute per message, that's two and a half days of my life gone.

Given that far too many messages are preceded by research to prove or disprove an utterly irrelevant point, and therefore take considerably more than a minute, I dread to think how much of my life I've let ebb away.

Given I'm well over 9000 posts I really wish I hadn't started this line of thinking.

by Jeremy_Kyle Mon 09 Feb 2015, 3:57 pm

socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

Its a tennis forum, BB we are grown people talking about how well somebody strikes a fuzzy yellow ball. It is all a triviality.

It's ok for a good laugh. The secret is to not take seriously anything is written on here and particularly anything from Socal!!

Just kidding.... Wink

by It Must Be Love Mon 09 Feb 2015, 4:28 pm

bogbrush wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

Its a tennis forum, BB we are grown people talking about how well somebody strikes a fuzzy yellow ball. It is all a triviality.
I know. Terrifying isn't it?

And I speak as one of the prime afflicted, I'm certainly not taking any high ground here.

Someone - can't remember who - said tennis was a brilliant game to play and a bit dodgy to watch. I'd only add that this is true unless you have an intense partisan reason to side to one player. I can't watch any match without picking a side, it's like without it there's really no point. Surely it's this which leads us to these insane debates.

Murdoch has criticised himself in the light of this but tbh he's a country mile ahead of almost everyone else when it comes down to it.

Tennis is a lot more fun to watch when you're behind one player. For me anyway Ok!

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 5:59 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I don't agree with SoCal, at least not fully. I don't think Novak was that good on grass to win Wimbledon the way Fed won his five in a row from 2003-2007. Please don't discount the grass goat on grass! Also, who says Rafa wasn't there to challenge Fed on surfaces other than clay? He pushed peak Fed to the limit on grass at Wimbledon in 2007, and that wasn't the peak Rafa on grass yet ( Rafa peaked on grass in 2008/2010).

Novak in 2007 lost to peak Fed in straight sets at USO, even though he had set points, but don't forget a Fed past his peak, in 2011, had match points vs a peak Novak at the USO, and a peak Novak needed to go five sets to beat a Fed who's past his prime! So, we have to see both sides of the coin, not just one side to suit our own views. Fed at his best is better than anyone of these current players on fast surfaces and on grass; Novak may be better than Fed on slower HC surfaces. On clay I think it's 50:50. I also think that a peak Rafa is better than Novak on clay and grass, but Novak is better on the HCs, Rafa vs Fed? Rafa better than Fed on clay and slow HCS; Fed better on quick HCs and on grass.

The argument here is not that Djokovic is better than Federer. I didn't make that argument. The argument is really is Djokovic and Murray of today tougher competition than Fed's contemporaries of the same age (Hewitt, Safin, Nalby, Roddick etc.).

And number 2: No one said that Federer of the last couple of years is as good as Federer of 04-07 either.

So you aren't really arguing with me you are arguing with yourself. The points regarding pre-peak Djokovic being ranked 3 in the world and running Federer closer than his contemporaries in 2007 was to show how Djokovic stacked up against Fed's rivals not show that Djokovic is better than Federer.

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 6:02 am

bogbrush wrote:
socal1976 wrote:
bogbrush wrote:So much of this discussion is so desperately needy.

Do I care who thinks Federer is this or that? No.
Do I sometimes get sufficiently energised by the neediness to become ridiculously engaged in it all, even if only to puncture some reality constructs and annoy people? Guilty.
Is this mentally healthy behaviour and a responsible use of lifespan? No.
Am I going to shake that habit? Hopefully.

Its a tennis forum, BB we are grown people talking about how well somebody strikes a fuzzy yellow ball. It is all a triviality.
I know. Terrifying isn't it?

And I speak as one of the prime afflicted, I'm certainly not taking any high ground here.

Someone - can't remember who - said tennis was a brilliant game to play and a bit dodgy to watch. I'd only add that this is true unless you have an intense partisan reason to side to one player. I can't watch any match without picking a side, it's like without it there's really no point. Surely it's this which leads us to these insane debates.

Murdoch has criticised himself in the light of this but tbh he's a country mile ahead of almost everyone else when it comes down to it.

It is a hard sport to get into if you aren't rooting for or against someone. Because then it just becomes a series of shots and a bland scoreline. I can enjoy watching two players I have no stake in emotionally if they play a great match. But I can watch a player I like and enjoy it even if they win against overwhelmed opposition or play ugly but win. When you actually care about the player watching a close five set match is the next best thing to actually doing it yourself the tension can be nerve racking. Its the nature of an individual sport as opposed to rooting for a certain club.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 6:10 am

SoCal. My point is to refute the argument that Novak would be as dominant as Fed had Novak being in Fed's position during 2004-2007. Novak WONT be as dominant, as he's not as good as Fed on grass, to have that kind of dominance that Fed had during 2004-2007 where he won three out of four slams, including Wimbledon, for three out of those four years! I'm certainly not arguing with myself but with people like you and IMBL, who believed that Novak would be as dominant as Fed had he being there in peak form during 2004-2007(pardon me if I've included your name wrongly here). Even if we assumed that Novak would beat all of Fed's peers during 2004-2007 the way Fed did, he won't be beating them on grass the way Fed did, I'm sure of that! So, to say that Novak would've Fed's kind of dominance, to me, it's not being realistic.

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 6:12 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:SoCal. My point is to refute the argument that Novak would be as dominant as Fed had Novak being in Fed's position during 2004-2007. Novak WONT be as dominant, as he's not as good as Fed on grass, to have that kind of dominance that Fed had during 2004-2007 where he won three out of four slams, including Wimbledon, for three out of those four years! I'm certainly not arguing with myself but with people like you and IMBL, who believed that Novak would be as dominant as Fed had he being there in peak form during 2004-2007(pardon me if I've included your name wrongly here). Even if we assumed that Novak would beat all of Fed's peers during 2004-2007 the way Fed did, he won't be beating them on grass the way Fed did, I'm sure of that! So, to say that Novak would've Fed's kind of dominance, to me, it's not being realistic.

Fair enough. Good post.

by Born Slippy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 8:26 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:I don't agree with SoCal, at least not fully. I don't think Novak was that good on grass to win Wimbledon the way Fed won his five in a row from 2003-2007. Please don't discount the grass goat on grass! Also, who says Rafa wasn't there to challenge Fed on surfaces other than clay? He pushed peak Fed to the limit on grass at Wimbledon in 2007, and that wasn't the peak Rafa on grass yet ( Rafa peaked on grass in 2008/2010).

Novak in 2007 lost to peak Fed in straight sets at USO, even though he had set points, but don't forget a Fed past his peak, in 2011, had match points vs a peak Novak at the USO, and a peak Novak needed to go five sets to beat a Fed who's past his prime! So, we have to see both sides of the coin, not just one side to suit our own views. Fed at his best is better than anyone of these current players on fast surfaces and on grass; Novak may be better than Fed on slower HC surfaces. On clay I think it's 50:50. I also think that a peak Rafa is better than Novak on clay and grass, but Novak is better on the HCs, Rafa vs Fed? Rafa better than Fed on clay and slow HCS; Fed better on quick HCs and on grass.

Hmm, I fully agree that Fed is a better grass court player than Novak but I have to say that I think Novak would have picked up most Wimbledons between 03-07 had that period coincided with his peak and Fed not been there. Otherwise, you are arguing that Roddick (not even the improved 09 version) could beat peak Novak in 03-05 and that baby Nadal would have been able to stop him in 06-07. Just don't see it myself.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 8:48 am

I think Roddick is a good bet to beat peak Novak on grass. Don't forget Roddick made three Wimbledon finals and each time he was beaten by Fed. Is peak Novak better than peak Fed on grass? My answer is no, so, I don't think peak Novak is sure to beat Roddick on grass, not forgetting Roddick had won four titles on fast grass at Queens, don't tell me he's worse than Novak on grass!

You talk about baby Rafa, I don't understand what you mean by baby Rafa. A pre prime Rafa did push Fed to his limit on grass in 2007, and a peak Rafa was formidable on grass, albeit for onky two/three years. So if we assume a peak Novak and a peak Rafa during 2004-2007 minus Fed, again I don't think Novak was going to win many Wimbledon with Rafa and Roddick around. Novak is certainly not in the class of Fed where grass is concerned. So, Novak might win two slams a season, maybe with a season where he would win three slams, but Rafa would be there for clay, and one or two Wimbledon too. Roddick too would win one or two Wimbledon, IMO.

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 8:50 am

Born Slippy wrote:
Belovedluckyboy wrote:I don't agree with SoCal, at least not fully. I don't think Novak was that good on grass to win Wimbledon the way Fed won his five in a row from 2003-2007. Please don't discount the grass goat on grass! Also, who says Rafa wasn't there to challenge Fed on surfaces other than clay? He pushed peak Fed to the limit on grass at Wimbledon in 2007, and that wasn't the peak Rafa on grass yet ( Rafa peaked on grass in 2008/2010).

Novak in 2007 lost to peak Fed in straight sets at USO, even though he had set points, but don't forget a Fed past his peak, in 2011, had match points vs a peak Novak at the USO, and a peak Novak needed to go five sets to beat a Fed who's past his prime! So, we have to see both sides of the coin, not just one side to suit our own views. Fed at his best is better than anyone of these current players on fast surfaces and on grass; Novak may be better than Fed on slower HC surfaces. On clay I think it's 50:50. I also think that a peak Rafa is better than Novak on clay and grass, but Novak is better on the HCs, Rafa vs Fed? Rafa better than Fed on clay and slow HCS; Fed better on quick HCs and on grass.

Hmm, I fully agree that Fed is a better grass court player than Novak but I have to say that I think Novak would have picked up most Wimbledons between 03-07 had that period coincided with his peak and Fed not been there. Otherwise, you are arguing that Roddick (not even the improved 09 version) could beat peak Novak in 03-05 and that baby Nadal would have been able to stop him in 06-07. Just don't see it myself.

If we are talking hypotheticals, I think Djokovic would have an easier time with pre-peak Nadal of 06-07 than Federer did if we are talking the Djokovic of today. It is a rather confusing matter and obviously it is pure conjecture. Would Djokovic post 2011 playing Nadal of 05 and 06 do better on clay than Federer did?

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 8:55 am

Even if we assume it's baby Rafa around during 2004-2007, I think Rafa was good enough to win the 2007 Wimbledon, for I don't see Novak playing as well as peak Fed to beat Rafa in 2007. From 2004-2006, I can see both Roddick and Novak winning at Wimbledon, if we assume Hewitt wasn't good enough to challenge them. Hewitt was beaten by Fed at Wimbledon in 2004 and 2005, and Hewitt was a Wimbledon champion himself, and had also won at Queens four times.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 9:01 am

SoCal, I don't think Novak would have it easy vs a Rafa on clay in 2005/2006. Rafa had his speed and power then, much better than he has it now, though skill wise the current Rafa is better. Rafa's défensive skills was even better back then, fitness and stamina too, a greater wall than what he's now, so I don't give Novak much chances either. People tend to give Fed less credit on clay when he lost to Rafa, but forget how close he was in 2006 to beat Rafa on clay.

by Belovedluckyboy Tue 10 Feb 2015, 9:11 am

To add to my previous post, I think peak Fed was better than peak Novak on clay. In the Fedal matches of MC and Rome in 2006, Rafa was playing a peak Fed and I don't think it's just about matchup that Rafa beat Fed both times. It's not so simple as hitting CC topspin FH to Fed's SHBH; in those matches, Fed came forward to the net more often to attack and shorten the rallies and he had much successes doing that. Fed's BH back then was very solid, and that's why their matches back then were mostly close encounters, except on indoor HCs. Im not sure a peak Novak could play better than Fed back then especially on clay.

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 10:56 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:SoCal, I don't think Novak would have it easy vs a Rafa on clay in 2005/2006. Rafa had his speed and power then, much better than he has it now, though skill wise the current Rafa is better. Rafa's défensive skills was even better back then, fitness and stamina too, a greater wall than what he's now, so I don't give Novak much chances either. People tend to give Fed less credit on clay when he lost to Rafa, but forget how close he was in 2006 to beat Rafa on clay.

Well it is interesting that the best years Nadal had were actually 2010 and 2012, so if Nadal was so much better in 05 and 06 why did he have his best season even considering 08 well after 05 and 06. I think Nadal post 08 was a much better and varied player than the Nadal of 05-07

by socal1976 Tue 10 Feb 2015, 10:58 am

Belovedluckyboy wrote:Even if we assume it's baby Rafa around during 2004-2007, I think Rafa was good enough to win the 2007 Wimbledon, for I don't see Novak playing as well as peak Fed to beat Rafa in 2007. From 2004-2006, I can see both Roddick and Novak winning at Wimbledon, if we assume Hewitt wasn't good enough to challenge them. Hewitt was beaten by Fed at Wimbledon in 2004 and 2005, and Hewitt was a Wimbledon champion himself, and had also won at Queens four times.

Yes but matchup wise Djokovic poses a much bigger problem for Nadal than Federer ever has. So why would Nadal with a much weaker serve in 2007 do better on grass or hardcourt against a peak Djokovic?

by Sponsored content