Murray's s stellar career proves once and again who really benefitted from a weak era

I do find it amusing that now reading on all the sites you hear how Novak is beating up on a Weak era? Here is the punchline you hear that mainly from Fed fans, some Rafa fans as well; but mainly Rog fans. Murray has always been the canary in the coal mine. Looking at all his numbers objectively, and the fact that this is his first slam final in what 11 finals where his opponent wasn't named Novak or Roger, Murray would likely be a six to ten slam champ in any other era. Look at the large total Masters haul, the crazy number of finals, and the players he has played in those finals. Murray's misfortune  is that he was born in the same year or so with Novak and Nadal and within striking Range of fed. Despite that look at the legacy and consistency he has brought.

Let's contrast that with the infamous rollover generation where fat guys could be in the top five and players who pretended to care could win two slams. The false argument is created that if not for Fed's brilliance that those guys would have been great. No, Murray is an example of another great who was diminished statistically because of the greatness of others. The rollover boys, with the exception of Roddick who at least stayed consistently competitive just faded and were surpassed by the whole tour.


For the sake of the competition is weak today crowd among fed fans I suggest you guys stop making this comparison. It's like Donald Trump bragging about his hair. Or as one famous poster said, it's like the king is naked.

Oh dear it didn't take you long.

Bad timing buddy - Novak just lost to Sam Querrey - ROFLMAO. Roger never had such a loss during his peak years.

Murray beating the leading light of the 'lost generation' - the evidently limited, 'i'm gonna fashion 2 break points off the Murray serve' - Raonic doesn't prove diddly squat.

We know Murray's a good player - but other than Murray there is no competition for Screech in the weakest era of all time. But e still managed to lose to Querrey - lol.



emancipator

U just mad 'cause Screech will forever have on his record - lost to big goofball Sam Querrey during his peak. When you were hoping for the calendar slam so you could elevate your boy to Goathood. Epic fail that was.

Sorry mate. That one loss alone disqualifies Screech forever.

This should be fun

But leave Fat Dave alone, after all he's the only player ever to come back from two sets down to beat Andy :-)

No any era with fat guys in the top five is weakest of all time. You know what Roger also didn't do he didn't win 4 slams in a row and complete a 52 week slam.

Yeah that's all amazing but you know something else he didn't do - lose to Sam freaking Querrey - when he was supposed to win the calendar slam.

Who said he was supposed to win the calendar slam, not me. By the way querrey is a former top tweety player with a huge serve on grass, and who cares about that anyway.

Dude, if you're gonna WUM, don't get butt hurt when people WUM you back.

Going back to your point about weak eras - this has to be the weakest in the open era.

Roger and Rafa finished.

Raonic the best of the lost generation - desperate times indeed.

LOL - just seen another term for this generation on another forum - 'the missing link generation' -

emancipator wrote:Dude, if you're gonna WUM, don't get butt hurt when people WUM you back.

Going back to your point about weak eras - this has to be the weakest in the open era.

Roger and Rafa finished.

Raonic the best of the lost generation - desperate times indeed.

Whose butt hurt I am happy got a smile on my face. I just love the comparison of eras to Fed because you guys revived it when in actuality it is so laughable how right it proves me all along. Glad I converted you to believing in weak eras. Nostrafreakingdamus strikes again.

My Dad is bigger than your Dad. FACT.

emancipator wrote:Dude, if you're gonna WUM, don't get butt hurt when people WUM you back.

Going back to your point about weak eras - this has to be the weakest in the open era.

Roger and Rafa finished.

Raonic the best of the lost generation - desperate times indeed.

Is it a WUM article? 

I think it's more of a wind up to suggest the current era is worse than 2002

GOAT debates require weak era theories or his weak era is bigger than the others weak era.  You can't take the weak era from the GOAT.  They are joined at the hip.  

I think one can assess "strength in depth" and peak levels by monitoring the success of individual players throughout their career span.  There is a pattern of age related degradation after a certain peak level performance.  So for example Federer's success in the latter part of his career suggests how high his peak was. This type of analysis enables comparison of players with significant overlapping careers even though there may be age differences of up to six years.

U

Nore Staat wrote:GOAT debates require weak era theories or his weak era is bigger than the others weak era.  You can't take the weak era from the GOAT.  They are joined at the hip.  

I think one can assess "strength in depth" and peak levels by monitoring the success of individual players throughout their career span.  There is a pattern of age related degradation after a certain peak level performance.  So for example Federer's success in the latter part of his career suggests how high his peak was.  This type of analysis enables comparison of players with significant overlapping careers even though there may be age differences of up to six years.

Yes and I took the age issues of all the big 4 into consideration. Would you not agree it favors fed that no other all time great of his own age existed while Murray, Novak, and Nadal were born in little over a year. In actuality the ages of the respective big 4 guys is key to the advantage fed enjoyed.

banbrotam wrote:

emancipator wrote:Dude, if you're gonna WUM, don't get butt hurt when people WUM you back.

Going back to your point about weak eras - this has to be the weakest in the open era.

Roger and Rafa finished.

Raonic the best of the lost generation - desperate times indeed.

Is it a WUM article? 

I think it's more of a wind up to suggest the current era is worse than 2002

Or 2006 or 2007 as well

What are you accomplishing with your never ending jabs at Federer and his fans? It's old man, really old and fairly pathetic. 95% of your posts is a desperate attempt to diminish Federer, aggravate his fans and project success upon your favorite guy that he hasn't sniffed yet. Anyone with a rational and unbiased brain understands Federer is at very worst one of the very best 2 or 3 players ever and no era or level of competiton would deny him that. The guy has won the same amount of majors as nadal against the exact same tour players nadal won his against. Do you not think an emerging prime Federer would have won 3 more against a different era than he faced early on. A Federer the same age as djokovic, nadal, Murray would have won at least 2 of the last 3 majors finals he played djokovic. A same age as them Federer would have wiped the floor with raoinic and Murray this year at Wimbledon. A 70% Federer with a swollen knee that he can't even straighten yet to recreate the start of his serve motion that he's had for his whole career and whose back was held together by compression shirts and bandages was still about all anyone could handle on grass This year.

The guy while healthy is playing at a level that I guarantee djokovic , Murray and nadal won't sniff when they are his age.

Djokovic and nadal are all time greats. Absolute studs in the history of the sport, but federer has proven and would have against any age group that his is a rarefied talent. He is the mountain that they all want to reach and as nadal has shown- that last summit is a tough one.

This war with fed fans that is in your head and yours alone is kind of sad. You are stuck shouting at people that apparently left this forum long ago. The thing you don't seem to get is all fan groups are the same. There are nutty djokovic fans all over social media calling him a messiah, his own father claims a star appeared proclaiming him a chosen one, a goat at 12 majors, calling federers wife names; and there are Federer fans who think he is a god amongst mortals- hell- John McEnroe uttered that while fed was playing a player McEnroe coaches. Yet, you fall into that trap of stupid Social media hate. The fact is the majority of Federer fans are quite content with what Federer has done and proven and snipes for clearly biased fans with agendas don't even move their/our needles. When and if djokovic fans like you get to that point of contentment- then you will finally be at peace with where your favorite guy measures in the big scheme of the sport. Until then- your lack of respect for others just shows your insecurity. Peace and best of luck to your guy. He has a tough last stretch of mountain climbing that my guy has already traveled.

Ruffin, I appreciate your sensible statements. But there are people who are currently on this site who seem to talk about the lack of competition today who defended tooth and nail the idea that Federer's fast court contemporaries were weak. If you go onto other sites, and I did for awhile you see all these fed fans not only on this site but on others talking about how Djokovic is beating up a weak era. Laughable considering that those people will argue about how great Empanada Dave and One shot Andy were. And Murray's place in the game is very crucial.

Murray as I said is the canary in the coal mine. He is the one that proves whose era was weaker. And at the same time makes a mockery of the false argument that the rollover boys were only weaker and failed because of how great Fed was. Like Safin and Nalby were losing to fed in the semis and finals of all the slams. No Murray is a guy whose records are stunted by other greats, the rollover boys just were not good and a couple of them that had the talent didn't have the work ethic.

PS don't misunderstand this isn't about Djokovic. As I said I actually think, that since 2015 the golden period of 08-14 is probably over and we may be in a weak period now. And if Novak never becomes GOAT that is fine with me to. This is completely about me, and has little to do with Novak. I was called a conspiracy theorist and borderline whacko for suggesting weak era for Fed's competition, now all those Fed fans are basically calling weak era on Djokovic. This is all about me winning a 5 year debate and getting to say the 4 most beautiful words in the English language,"I told you so"

TRuffin wrote: ... 95% of your posts is a desperate attempt to diminish Federer, aggravate his fans and project success upon your favorite guy that he hasn't sniffed yet.  ... This war with fed fans that is in your head and yours alone is kind of sad. ...

It's one person's opinion that is reflective of an opinion of a larger group, but not larger than another group that say that Federer is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that say Nadal is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Borg is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says that Rod Laver is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Pancho Gonzales is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Jimmy Connors is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Pete Sampras is GOAT or near GOAT or another group ...

You can either agree with Socal or disagree with him but it is an opinion that is not necessarily provable because GOAT hood is a myth along with fairies and hobgoblins.  My own view is that Borg was probably GOAT followed by Federer but probably pre-injury Nadal was better than Federer (though not with Federer's versatility) while it is difficult to classify Pancho Gonzalez but he may have been GOAT and then there was Rod Laver ... Djokovic is probably heading towards GOAT of bendy flexy slide on any surface GOAThood but he hasn't yet begun to slide career wise - so there is still more to go with him.

What Socal has helped me with in his past comments and data is to recognise that Djokovic is an exceptional talented player with some unique attributes and that he is in the mix when discussing the greats and that Djokovic's success cannot be simply explained away by weak era theories.  Djokovic Mk II was a real phenomenon and was able to overcome Federer beating Nadal near to what appeared to be Nadal's prime, Nadal's 2010 year versus Djokovic's 2011 year.  

GOAThood candidates are about effectiveness in winning not about flair or "versatility" or particular styles.  Often they are characterised by having "unique" qualities - bringing something new to the sport that wasn't there before.  In the assessment one has to consider the performance across surfaces, the variation of the surfaces, the technology, the opposition ...

banbrotam wrote:

This should be fun

But leave Fat Dave alone, after all he's the only player ever to come back from two sets down to beat Andy :-)

How old was Andy 12, maybe 13; did Dave eat some fish chips in the rain delay to get recharged?

I like to think of Dave as the Henry the eighth of the tour, he was athletic and promising in his youth then he hurt his leg and discovered a love of the meat pie, at least Dave has never killed one of his wives at that point the analogy breaks down.

Nore Staat wrote:

TRuffin wrote: ... 95% of your posts is a desperate attempt to diminish Federer, aggravate his fans and project success upon your favorite guy that he hasn't sniffed yet.  ... This war with fed fans that is in your head and yours alone is kind of sad. ...

It's one person's opinion that is reflective of an opinion of a larger group, but not larger than another group that say that Federer is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that say Nadal is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Borg is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says that Rod Laver is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Pancho Gonzales is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Jimmy Connors is GOAT or near GOAT or another group that says Pete Sampras is GOAT or near GOAT or another group ...

You can either agree with Socal or disagree with him but it is an opinion that is not necessarily provable because GOAT hood is a myth along with fairies and hobgoblins.  My own view is that Borg was probably GOAT followed by Federer but probably pre-injury Nadal was better than Federer (though not with Federer's versatility) while it is difficult to classify Pancho Gonzalez but he may have been GOAT and then there was Rod Laver ... Djokovic is probably heading towards GOAT of bendy flexy slide on any surface GOAThood but he hasn't yet begun to slide career wise - so there is still more to go with him.

What Socal has helped me with in his past comments and data is to recognise that Djokovic is an exceptional talented player with some unique attributes and that he is in the mix when discussing the greats and that Djokovic's success cannot be simply explained away by weak era theories.  Djokovic Mk II was a real phenomenon and was able to overcome Federer beating Nadal near to what appeared to be Nadal's prime, Nadal's 2010 year versus Djokovic's 2011 year.  

GOAThood candidates are about effectiveness in winning not about flair or "versatility" or particular styles.  Often they are characterised by having "unique" qualities - bringing something new to the sport that wasn't there before.  In the assessment one has to consider the performance across surfaces, the variation of the surfaces, the technology, the opposition ...

Good post Nore, I concur with much of it. People get too obsessed with the determination and not the intellectual journey. I have learned a great deal in the numbers and logic of my opposition in many tennis debates on this site. Not to get too philosophical but the argument and the energy and tension involved brings out a better understanding for all involved as long as they don't get too warped and biased by the whole tic and tac of the thing. But frankly, we need a little p++s and vinegar in the conversation or otherwise it just isn't that interesting. No one wants to read a tennis site that reads like an Encyclopedia. Banter and wumming is the dung like fertilizer of online discussion, I didn't invent the game I just know the rules. The fact is that the human mind is obsessed with getting the right answer and making lists and logical orders of things. The joy is in the journey and the battle, toughen up Ruffin, and don't get your knickers in a twist. Its all done with a smile on my face, but in the end I give you some serious tennis knowledge if you are paying attention. If it is any consolation you are one of the majority, albeit slim majority of non-crazy fed fans.

TRuffin wrote: You are stuck shouting at people that apparently left this forum long ago.

i am one of them. good post Truffin.

Long and the short of it is Djokovic will never to fit to lace King Roger's boots.

Djokovic dipped his bread against an ageing Federer and the delusional Socal thinks that makes Djokovic the GOAT

Let's see what Djokovic is doing into his mid 30s...probably in a wheelchair needing two new kneecaps...

Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Jermaine the Gerry - Judging by his posts he is even worse than that other "Jerk" poster JM, but always good for a laugh if nothing else!

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

I don't recall anyone reporting any of Jermaine2015's posts being reported for breaking the rules.
Who's world has come to an end? Mine? Yours? Henman Bill's? HMM's? Craig's? LF's? etc.

I'd be interested in hearing (via PM of course) what those 'good posters' that we've 'lost' have said to you - perhaps some of them told me something different.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

So Fed's one win against a passed it Sampras is proof of goathood, what about Djokovic's almost 30 wins against Federer, oh yeah that is right as Fed apologist you probably prescribe to the theory that all Fed losses post 09 was due to his age, you know the same age Djokovic is now. The fact is if you want to use performance at age as a measure, Novak was never over run by a rival while in the middle of his physical peak like Fed was. That far outweighs a single 5 set match win against a passed it Sampras at Wimbeldon. By the way, I actually don't think Djokovic is GOAT, and Fed has still a much stronger claim. But lets be real Fed's contemporaries were pathetic and inflated some of his numbers by just how pathetic they were.

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

So Fed's one win against a passed it Sampras is proof of goathood, what about Djokovic's almost 30 wins against Federer, oh yeah that is right as Fed apologist you probably prescribe to the theory that all Fed losses post 09 was due to his age, you know the same age Djokovic is now. The fact is if you want to use performance at age as a measure, Novak was never over run by a rival while in the middle of his physical peak like Fed was. That far outweighs a single 5 set match win against a passed it Sampras at Wimbeldon. By the way, I actually don't think Djokovic is GOAT, and Fed has still a much stronger claim. But lets be real Fed's contemporaries were pathetic and inflated some of his numbers by just how pathetic they were.

Peak Federer would've destroyed Djokovic on any surface any day of week.

Djokovic needed all courts being slowed down to pretend he's in the GOAT's league.

Jermaine2015 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

So Fed's one win against a passed it Sampras is proof of goathood, what about Djokovic's almost 30 wins against Federer, oh yeah that is right as Fed apologist you probably prescribe to the theory that all Fed losses post 09 was due to his age, you know the same age Djokovic is now. The fact is if you want to use performance at age as a measure, Novak was never over run by a rival while in the middle of his physical peak like Fed was. That far outweighs a single 5 set match win against a passed it Sampras at Wimbeldon. By the way, I actually don't think Djokovic is GOAT, and Fed has still a much stronger claim. But lets be real Fed's contemporaries were pathetic and inflated some of his numbers by just how pathetic they were.

Peak Federer would've destroyed Djokovic on any surface any day of week.

Djokovic needed all courts being slowed down to pretend he's in the GOAT's league.

Yeah, whatever Fed is the master of the universe in your hypothetical tour where they play on fast conditions whatever. The fact is that Fed apologists like you where using the Fed is old excuse since 2009 when Fed was a year younger than Djokovic is now. So all Djokovic losses from now on to younger players are because Djokovic is old, borrowing a line made famous by Fed apologist.

My own opinion peak Novak v. peak Roger would see Novak winning on the clay and slower hardcourts and fed winning the faster courts. Novak beat peak Roger in 2007 by the way the day after he beat Nadal and the day after he beat Roddick in Canada 07.

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

So Fed's one win against a passed it Sampras is proof of goathood, what about Djokovic's almost 30 wins against Federer, oh yeah that is right as Fed apologist you probably prescribe to the theory that all Fed losses post 09 was due to his age, you know the same age Djokovic is now. The fact is if you want to use performance at age as a measure, Novak was never over run by a rival while in the middle of his physical peak like Fed was. That far outweighs a single 5 set match win against a passed it Sampras at Wimbeldon. By the way, I actually don't think Djokovic is GOAT, and Fed has still a much stronger claim. But lets be real Fed's contemporaries were pathetic and inflated some of his numbers by just how pathetic they were.

Peak Federer would've destroyed Djokovic on any surface any day of week.

Djokovic needed all courts being slowed down to pretend he's in the GOAT's league.

Yeah, whatever Fed is the master of the universe in your hypothetical tour where they play on fast conditions whatever. The fact is that Fed apologists like you where using the Fed is old excuse since 2009 when Fed was a year younger than Djokovic is now. So all Djokovic losses from now on to younger players are because Djokovic is old, borrowing a line made famous by Fed apologist.

Djokovic winning isn't due to talent, it's due to something else....

Jermaine2015 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:

Jermaine2015 wrote:

banbrotam wrote:Love to know how Jermaine2015, consistently avoids a ban or even criticism - but the minute someone posts an article suggesting Fed had it easy in his early career, the whole world comes to an end

No wonder we've lost so many good posters  

Federer had it so easy that he beat Sampras at Wimbledon? Yeah so easy...

So Fed's one win against a passed it Sampras is proof of goathood, what about Djokovic's almost 30 wins against Federer, oh yeah that is right as Fed apologist you probably prescribe to the theory that all Fed losses post 09 was due to his age, you know the same age Djokovic is now. The fact is if you want to use performance at age as a measure, Novak was never over run by a rival while in the middle of his physical peak like Fed was. That far outweighs a single 5 set match win against a passed it Sampras at Wimbeldon. By the way, I actually don't think Djokovic is GOAT, and Fed has still a much stronger claim. But lets be real Fed's contemporaries were pathetic and inflated some of his numbers by just how pathetic they were.

Peak Federer would've destroyed Djokovic on any surface any day of week.

Djokovic needed all courts being slowed down to pretend he's in the GOAT's league.

Yeah, whatever Fed is the master of the universe in your hypothetical tour where they play on fast conditions whatever. The fact is that Fed apologists like you where using the Fed is old excuse since 2009 when Fed was a year younger than Djokovic is now. So all Djokovic losses from now on to younger players are because Djokovic is old, borrowing a line made famous by Fed apologist.

Djokovic winning isn't due to talent, it's due to something else....

Ok, don't care. Just go back to explaining to me how losing early in slams like Stan is better than getting to the final and losing like Murray. Did you inform the ATP so that they can change their prize money to be more in line with your genius CONVERSION RATE theory of goatness.

Who said Wawrinka was GOAT? Think you need some help because you're trippin...

TRuffin wrote:What are you accomplishing with your never ending jabs at Federer and his fans? It's old man, really old and fairly pathetic.  95% of your posts is a desperate attempt to diminish Federer, aggravate his fans and project success upon your favorite guy that he hasn't sniffed yet.    Anyone with a rational and unbiased brain understands Federer is at very worst one of the very best 2 or 3 players ever and no era or level of competiton would deny him that.  The guy has won the same amount of majors as nadal against the exact same tour players nadal won his against. Do you not think an emerging prime Federer would have won 3 more against a different era than he faced early on.  A Federer the same age as djokovic, nadal, Murray would have won at least 2 of the last 3 majors finals he played djokovic. A same age as them Federer would have wiped the floor with raoinic and Murray this year at Wimbledon.  A 70% Federer with a swollen knee that he can't even straighten yet to recreate the start of his serve motion that he's had for his whole career and whose back was held together by compression shirts and bandages was still about all anyone could handle on grass This year.  

The guy while healthy is playing at a level that I guarantee djokovic , Murray and nadal won't sniff when they are his age.  

Djokovic and nadal are all time greats.  Absolute studs in the history of the sport, but federer has proven and would have against any age group that his is a rarefied talent. He is the mountain that they all want to reach and as nadal has shown- that last summit is a tough one.  

This war with fed fans that is in your head and yours alone is kind of sad. You are stuck shouting at people that apparently left this forum long ago.  The thing you don't seem to get is all fan groups are the same. There are nutty djokovic fans all over social media calling him a messiah, his own father claims a star appeared proclaiming him a chosen one, a goat at 12 majors, calling federers wife names; and there are Federer fans who think he is a god amongst mortals- hell- John McEnroe uttered that while fed was playing a player McEnroe coaches.  Yet, you fall into that trap of stupid Social media hate.  The fact is the majority of Federer fans are quite content with what Federer has done and proven and snipes for clearly biased fans with agendas don't even move their/our needles.     When and if djokovic fans like you get to that point of contentment- then you will finally be at peace with where your favorite guy measures in the big scheme of the sport. Until then- your lack of respect for others just shows your insecurity.  Peace and best of luck to your guy. He has a tough last stretch of mountain climbing that my guy has already traveled.

Great post

It's beyond sad really that a middle aged man can be this obsessed in his hate. Like a broken record. It does however remind me of the proverb: the empty vessel makes the most noise.

The truth is that Socal already knows all of the above - that Federer is the most talented, he would of won 17 slams in any era. The guy is just that good. Even at nearly 35 he's a regular in the last four of slams. Sadly the truth is too much for him to handle.



emancipator

Again Emanci you keep trying to spin my positions, not fair. I never ever said Djokovic is the GOAt and Fed isn't. I just said Fed feasted on way more cupcake slam draws during the rollover generation than anything Djokovic has ever benefitted from. At least if the statistical records of each players contemporaries matters at all.

So what is your point then?

Fed's no good? he's a fraud?

I don't care about GOAT - don't believe in it. Ridiculous hyperbolic short termism.

What I do know is that Federer is an incredible tennis player, as is Djokovic, but out of the two of them I'd much rather watch Federer play.

I thought you wrote a whole article to say that Federer was the GOAT, for a competition on this forum. It was a very good article actually.

Or maybe that was someone else.

LOL  

But in all honesty that was just for the competition. I don't really believe in it.

Henman Bill wrote:I thought you wrote a whole article to say that Federer was the GOAT, for a competition on this forum. It was a very good article actually.

Or maybe that was someone else.

Actually, I never did you are mistaken, if you can find that article I would be interested to see it. I think he has as good claim as anyone else. If I had to I'd put him second to Nadal at this point its very close. So that isn't my position

emancipator wrote:So what is your point then?

Fed's no good? he's a fraud?

I don't care about GOAT - don't believe in it. Ridiculous hyperbolic short termism.

What I do know is that Federer is an incredible tennis player, as is Djokovic, but out of the two of them I'd much rather watch Federer play.

Never said Djokovic was GOAT in this or another thread. The point specifically is reminding people that those now claiming weak era seemed so offended when you would suggest such a thing directed at Fed, when by all objective measures Fat Dave and the Rollover boys were the weakest competition in my 33 years of tennis. Hence why in 2007 the top three was made up of Fed, a Nadal with a WTA serve, and an asthmatic puppy version of Djokovic 4 years away from his prime and not any of Fed's contemporaries.

Socal, I was directing my comment to emancipator who wrote the article not you.

I just found it. See here: https://www.606v2.com/t41765-v2-g-o-a-t-the-final

OOh you lost the final 51-49. Ouch. That's got to hurt.

Still, I see looking back you weren't nececssarily saying he was the GOAT, just putting forward his case.

Very interesting read. Reminds me of the Fogniniiiiiii fiasco all over again.

Raonic is a better version of Karlovic or Philippoussis or Tanner, IMO.

Does Stakhovsky beating Federer or Rosol beating Nadal or Young beating Murray or Querrey beating Djokovic make them GOATs for the day?

laverfan wrote:Very interesting read. Reminds me of the Fogniniiiiiii fiasco all over again.

Raonic is a better version of Karlovic or Philippoussis or Tanner, IMO.

Does Stakhovsky beating Federer or Rosol beating Nadal or Young beating Murray or Querrey beating Djokovic  make them GOATs for the day?

Exactly, laverfan lets remember that Djokovic now is as old as Fed was in 2010, you know and I remember how any loss by Fed in that period was because of his agedness. What exactly does one loss to a big serving, former top 20 player by Djokovic at Wimbeldon mean in determining anything about either Fed or Djokovic's career? It doesn't, its a sidebar a footnote of really no importance, the big deal is he lost in a slam that could of hypothetically give him one more in his tally and given him a real shot at the CYGS. But Querrey is no stiff, he is exactly the type of player on a grass court who if serving well can hurt anyone.

laverfan wrote:Does Stakhovsky beating Federer or Rosol beating Nadal or Young beating Murray or Querrey beating Djokovic  make them GOATs for the day?

Yes

socal1976 wrote:Exactly, laverfan lets remember that Djokovic now is as old as Fed was in 2010, you know and I remember how any loss by Fed in that period was because of his agedness. What exactly does one loss to a big serving, former top 20 player by Djokovic at Wimbeldon mean in determining anything about either Fed or Djokovic's career? It doesn't, its a sidebar a footnote of really no importance, the big deal is he lost in a slam that could of hypothetically give him one more in his tally and given him a real shot at the CYGS. But Querrey is no stiff, he is exactly the type of player on a grass court who if serving well can hurt anyone.

Jimbo was no allowed to play RG in 1974, IIRC. At Least Djokovic played the best he could.

Correct..many players fell foul of pro/am/Team tennis rules back then...crazy. Think it affected Borg too who missed on an RG he would likely have won given it was in the middle of his run there.

lydian wrote:Correct..many players fell foul of pro/am/Team tennis rules back then...crazy. Think it affected Borg too who missed on an RG he would likely have won given it was in the middle of his run there.

yes it is another reason that it makes comparisons very difficult between today's game and the guys who played in the infancy of the tour. The lack of a standardized schedule and various labor disputes made it very different than today's tour. While the old guys lost out in some respect they also benefitted in that they didn't have a grueling schedule of mandatory masters events to deal with really to the mid 80s. That was one of the reasons Borg decided to leave was because of the birth of so many sub-slam level mandatories. Also in the past the top guys rarely played each other outside of slams, rarely I mean compared to what we see today. Fed, Djoko, Murray, and Nadal all played in a much higher rate against other top ten players than Borg or Connors. What would have Connors 74 looked like if he played 35 matches against the top ten as opposed to 7? So in some ways their records are hurt by the infancy of the tour, in other ways their winning percentages and tournament numbers are a bit inflated because the tour still did not mandate the top guys to be drawn into the same event week in and week out.