PDA

View Full Version : Murray on current ATP player who could take #1 from Fed in 2010 or later


federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 05:25 AM
Andy Murray is the only of the current ATP players who could knock Fed out of #1 by 2010 or later. Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Safin, Nadal, Davydenko, none of those will ever take over the #1 ranking from Federer. Murray is the only guy who is currently on the ATP tour who can ever do this, it wont be until atleast 2010 if he does though. I am not saying he will, I dont even think he will, but he does have a chance of doing so, nobody else of the current ATP does.

caulcano
02-28-2007, 05:54 AM
I think FED will be displaced at the top in 2009. Who will do it I don't know, but I'll try and come to some conclusion.


Of the players you've mentioned above, I'd rule out Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Safin, Nadal, Davydenko. Because I believe these ppl are at their peak or past it.


That leaves Murray, Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic and Baghdatis. Fairly talented players. If they have the belief & dedication like FED then anyone could come out on top. So I'd take my pick out of these 6 players.


I feel if FED isn't displaced by 2009, then the challenge is more likely to come from someone who is 16/17 now, 19/20 in 2010.

MIRO_1975
02-28-2007, 05:59 AM
Andy Murray is the only of the current ATP players who could knock Fed out of #1 by 2010 or later.

Why not someone elso before 2010...?:confused: ;)

AndyC
02-28-2007, 06:10 AM
Not Baghdatis or Monfils I think. Too inconsistent and they don't appear to have the whole package needed to dethrone Fed.

Gasquet has the talent and the shots but so far jury is out on the mind. He's still young and it wasn't too long ago that Federer was viewed as a talented nutcase. The most potential I think but mentally very fragile.

Much the same can be said about Berdych. Good power game though perhaps less complete than Gasquet/Murray in that respect but mentally.. well even worse than Gasquet imo!

Which leaves the two teenagers Djokovic and Murray. Both have been pretty impressive since the middle of last year and are making rapid tracks to the top 10. Both are also (probably) just one master's series final appearance away from the top 10. Both also still need work on the physical side of the game. Of the two Djokovic is the more aggressive though nowhere near out and out as say Berdych is. Murray tends to play more cerebrally with off pace shots though when the situation requires he can come up with some power. Either could potentially make number 1 assuming they continue to improve and home their game. As to whether they will make it only time will tell.

Then of course you have the next batch of teenagers who are a year younger than Murray/Djokovic of whom the leading two talents are probably Korolev and Del Potro.

Don't rule Nadal out quite yet. If he makes some changes to his game he could very well be the one to dethrone Federer. FWIW whoever is going to do that is going to have to make some giant strides in terms of catching up to Roger in combination with age catching Roger up. 2009/2010 could be when that happens assuming Roger doesn't get badly injured.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 07:24 AM
I gaurantee Federer wont lose the #1 ranking in 2009, no chance in hell. The earliest he might is 2010. I personally dont believe at all Federer will lose the #1 ranking in 2010, I believe that is more likely in 2012 or so, but the earliest I believe there is a chance of it happening is 2010.

The though of Monfils or Baghdatis dethroning Federer at #1 makes me laugh hystericaly. Those guys are barely top 10 caliber in the future. Berdych has a big power game but mentally he is a flake. Gasquet has versatilty but not the power or weapons needed to be #1 even if he gets it together mentally.

So I agree with the person who says Murray and Djokovic are the best 2 chances. Definitely Murray first for me, but Djokovic second.

caulcano
02-28-2007, 07:45 AM
I gaurantee Federer wont lose the #1 ranking in 2009, no chance in hell. The earliest he might is 2010. I personally dont believe at all Federer will lose the #1 ranking in 2010, I believe that is more likely in 2012 or so, but the earliest I believe there is a chance of it happening is 2010.

The though of Monfils or Baghdatis dethroning Federer at #1 makes me laugh hystericaly. Those guys are barely top 10 caliber in the future. Berdych has a big power game but mentally he is a flake. Gasquet has versatilty but not the power or weapons needed to be #1 even if he gets it together mentally.

So I agree with the person who says Murray and Djokovic are the best 2 chances. Definitely Murray first for me, but Djokovic second.


Discount anyone at your peril (well almost everyone).

FED rose to the top within 3yrs of defeating SAMP & people were just saying he had the potential to be #1 when he did that and probably before that aswell. I'm also pretty sure no-one in the world would imagine he could dominate as much as he had/is back in 2001.

whistleway
02-28-2007, 07:46 AM
I gaurantee Federer wont lose the #1 ranking in 2009, no chance in hell. The earliest he might is 2010. I personally dont believe at all Federer will lose the #1 ranking in 2010, I believe that is more likely in 2012 or so, but the earliest I believe there is a chance of it happening is 2010.

Yeah right. To be taken seriously, you need to learn how to spell :)

That is a dream. 6 years from now, Federer will lose #1? Maybe you are just young and not know much of tennis history. That is a ridiculous claim and you seem to have not much idea about pre-federer era. Federer is awesome and probably will be the GOAT. But that said, you are just dreaming with your fanatic views.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 07:52 AM
Discount anyone at your peril (well almost everyone).

FED rose to the top within 3yrs of defeating SAMP & people were just saying he had the potential to be #1 when he did that and probably before that aswell. I'm also pretty sure no-one in the world would imagine he could dominate as much as he had/is back in 2001.

I will discount players like Monfils and Baghdatis who will be lucky to stay in top 10 for any real length at time with total comfort and unworry thank you very much. Gasquet and Berdych are also not future #1 caliber although they have more potential be be top 5 then Monfils are Baghdatis.

As for your past example I predicted in 2001 Federer would be #1 for first time somewhere between 2003-2005 and would be better then Roddick and Hewitt so I dont take anything out of that past example to change my views any. The way I felt about the potential of Ancic or Joachim Johansson is about similar to how I feel about the potential of Baghdatis and Monfils now, vastly overrated by some.

Zaragoza
02-28-2007, 07:53 AM
You donīt know about the youngsters coming from now until 2010. How many people heard about Murray, Djokovic or even Nadal 3 years ago? Donīt forget Del Potro either.
As for Murray he has still many things to prove to state he will be no. 1 after 2010.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 07:57 AM
Yeah right. To be taken seriously, you need to learn how to spell :)

That is a dream. 6 years from now, Federer will lose #1? Maybe you are just young and not know much of tennis history. That is a ridiculous claim and you seem to have not much idea about pre-federer era. Federer is awesome and probably will be the GOAT. But that said, you are just dreaming with your fanatic views.

To be taken seriously you need to learn how to count I could say. 2012 is 5 years from now, not 6. 2012-2007 = 5, and 2007 + 5 = 2012

I know alot about tennis history compared to what you probably know, I have read many books on the history of tennis and seen tapes of most of the past great players who have won 4 slams or more.

What I do know is Sampras stayed on top for 6 years, that Federer has a more complete game then Sampras and shows he is still improving quickly moreso right now then Sampras did around 1996 at similiar point in time, and there are only 1 or 2 current youngest tour players(Murray and maybe Djokovic)who show any future potential sensational enough to have any hope of overtaking Federer in the rankings and would take them atleast 3 years of improvement to have any chance to do it.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 08:04 AM
You don´t know about the youngsters coming from now until 2010. How many people heard about Murray, Djokovic or even Nadal 3 years ago? Don´t forget Del Potro either. As for Murray he has still many things to prove to state he will be no. 1 after 2010.


Of course I know that, but a player who isnt even on the ATP tour yet, and is still in juniors has no chance to be #1 in the world over Federer until atleast 2010, and probably no chance until later then that.

Murray I first knew about in juniors in 2004 so that is 3 years ago now and he is still not even close to being #1 right now. Djokovic I first knew about in 2005, 2 years ago, and he too is a long way from #1. In fact both are still looking for their first slam quarter, and yet they are the younger players with most potential to be future #1s. That gives you an idea how long it would take for players who we only know about as great juniors now, or we dont know about at all yet, to have a chance at #1. People knew about Nadal 4 years ago atleast.

I agree Murray has a long way to to go to be #1 in 2010 which only illustrates how hard it will be to take Federer out of #1 even as early as 2010 since Murray has a much better chance to do that by 2010 then any Berdych, Gasquet, Baghdatis, or Monfils do. So saying it will be hard for Murray is similar to an admission it will be hard for anyone to knock Federer off #1 even in the year 2010, since he is the most likely of the current young group, with Djokovic probably closest after him of that age group.

whistleway
02-28-2007, 08:05 AM
To be taken seriously you need to learn how to count I could say. 2012 is 5 years from now, not 6. 2012-2007 = 5, and 2007 + 5 = 2012

2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 = 6

You said in 2012. Not before 2012.

QED.

However, 5 or 6 years is kinda moot. Thinking Federer would be #1 for that long is just plain dreaming.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 08:13 AM
2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 = 6

You said in 2012. Not before 2012.

QED.

However, 5 or 6 years is kinda moot. Thinking Federer would be #1 for that long is just plain dreaming.

We are now in 2007, not before it. So in 2012 would be 5 years, I never specified what point in 2012 it would be.

Thinking there is a reasonably high chance Federer would be #1 still in 2012 is far from dreaming when the earliest it looks even possable for him to lose the #1 ranking is 2010. Of the youngest current players on the ATP tour, the only ones with the potential to be future #1s, Andy Murray and Novak Djokovic, would need atleast 3 more years of improvement to catch Federer since right now they are light years behind him. If they are not able to do it, it would require a player not even yet a regular on the ATP tour. It would require this player 5 years if you truly analyze the long process of a player not even yet an ATP regular et to the point of earliest realist reaching #1, even for those who are considered to do very well early in their careers.

Bring me the example of a player who goes from being a top junior, who either doesnt play at all on the ATP tour, or only plays sparadic events but mostly in the juniors, who took less then 5 years from that point to be bonafide #1, particularly doing so overtaking a player of Federer's stature. So to be before that it would have to be from a current young tour player almost certainly, and there are only 1 or 2 of those who have the potential to be a future #1 in atleast 3years time, so if they dont succeed doing so, or not even as soon as 3 years from now, then 2012 is probably the next realistic year.

caulcano
02-28-2007, 08:27 AM
As for your past example I predicted in 2001 Federer would be #1 for first time somewhere between 2003-2005 and would be better then Roddick and Hewitt so I dont take anything out of that past example to change my views any.

I am a FED fan too, so I'm not trying to knock the guy.

But, I bet you didn't think he would be THIS good. I don't think anyone did to be honest.

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 08:38 AM
I am a FED fan too, so I'm not trying to knock the guy.

But, I bet you didn't think he would be THIS good. I don't think anyone did to be honest.

I honestly thought he would be somewhere between a 5-8 slam winner. As I said I believed he would spend more time at #1 then any of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin(at that point mainly because I thought Safin would underachieve), or Ferrero. No you are right I did not think he would end up being as great, and as dominant in winning slams and staying #1 as he has been. I thought those others would still battle him for #1, would hold it at points in time, and he would not win slams at something like a 2.5+/yr pace over a 4 year period.

So no I did not think he would be this dominant, this great, I do admit that. I did think he would end up being the best player of the group he came up with though.

I believe best to worst would end up being Federer-Roddick-Hewitt-Safin-Ferrero long term. Well it is too early to be definitive, and what you value would determine how you might rank Roddick vs Hewitt vs Safin now, although likely Hewitt has had the best career of those three at this point. Roddick might be behind both Hewitt and Safin until he wins another slam, of those three he has the best chance to win atleast 1 more slam though IMO. Of course it is possible none of them, except Fed of course, wins another slam, in which case I may have projected Roddick a bit too high, but other then that my order would be right, and Roddick still in hindsight probably had the most potential of the last 4 but got unlucky to run into Fed at his peak at the wrong time, although some would argue that about Hewitt just as much and it is another can of worms so......

I still believe I am pretty good with my predictions on the young players, even though I never predicted Federer to be as dominant as he is now.

larlarbd
02-28-2007, 09:21 AM
FED goes down not in 2010 , but this year ( 2007 ).
Love FED , but too much of something is too boring .
Yes , I know the counter argument - Do I call perfection boring ? NO = He is not even a complete player ( IN MY VIEW ) , was a joy to watch in 2006 . But I dearly hoped gonzo won in aus2007 - he squandered his chances .
Fed goes down & out in 2007 . New no#1 Roddick or Safin or Haas , wish nadal breaks his 3rd leg . :P

federerfanatic
02-28-2007, 12:52 PM
FED goes down not in 2010 , but this year ( 2007 ).
Love FED , but too much of something is too boring .
Yes , I know the counter argument - Do I call perfection boring ? NO = He is not even a complete player ( IN MY VIEW ) , was a joy to watch in 2006 . But I dearly hoped gonzo won in aus2007 - he squandered his chances .
Fed goes down & out in 2007 . New no#1 Roddick or Safin or Haas , wish nadal breaks his 3rd leg . :P

You just keep dreaming my friend, especialy those 3 bogus options you chose. There is more chance of Safin retiring before the end of 2007 then him being #1 ever again. There is also more chance of Federer winning the next 20 slams then Haas ever winning 1 at this point. If Roddick is even able to get the same number of slam titles and future wins over Federer-1 of each, it will have been a great success for him.

Also if Federer is boring and not a complete player in your view do you consider Roddick, Haas, or Safin a "complete" player by comparision. ROTFL!

Haas in fact could be considered more complete in a way, he is just a good player who is a B- in every category(if you look only at the games, and ignore the mental aspect where he is a F), while Federer being an A+ in some and only an A- in some(to some people)would make him less balanced then the constant "good nothing special" all around of Haas. So in a convulted sense I could see Haas being a more "complete" player then Federer without doing a single thing as well.

whistleway
02-28-2007, 01:53 PM
I honestly thought he would be somewhere between a 5-8 slam winner. As I said I believed he would spend more time at #1 then any of Hewitt, Roddick, Safin(at that point mainly because I thought Safin would underachieve), or Ferrero. No you are right I did not think he would end up being as great, and as dominant in winning slams and staying #1 as he has been. I thought those others would still battle him for #1, would hold it at points in time, and he would not win slams at something like a 2.5+/yr pace over a 4 year period.

So no I did not think he would be this dominant, this great, I do admit that. I did think he would end up being the best player of the group he came up with though.

I believe best to worst would end up being Federer-Roddick-Hewitt-Safin-Ferrero long term. Well it is too early to be definitive, and what you value would determine how you might rank Roddick vs Hewitt vs Safin now, although likely Hewitt has had the best career of those three at this point. Roddick might be behind both Hewitt and Safin until he wins another slam, of those three he has the best chance to win atleast 1 more slam though IMO. Of course it is possible none of them, except Fed of course, wins another slam, in which case I may have projected Roddick a bit too high, but other then that my order would be right, and Roddick still in hindsight probably had the most potential of the last 4 but got unlucky to run into Fed at his peak at the wrong time, although some would argue that about Hewitt just as much and it is another can of worms so......

I still believe I am pretty good with my predictions on the young players, even though I never predicted Federer to be as dominant as he is now.

The unspoken assumptions:

- Federer will be injury free
- Federer stays motivated
- Federer's current level doesn't drop
- Young guns don't unlock Federer's game etc..

Five years is a freaking long time to predict in a sport as fragile as tennis.. Heck, five years ago Federer didn't even had a slam. And you are just trying to sell us that he will still be #1 five years from now. )

LarougeNY
02-28-2007, 02:34 PM
Fed will be taken down in the 4th round of 2011 Wimbledon by someone thats born in august of 1991. Damn, why'd I have to be born in july...so close to being the chosen one....

Hops
02-28-2007, 03:01 PM
The unspoken assumptions:

- Federer will be injury free



this is the big one. Federer is very smart in his scheduling, does not overplay. But freakish things still happen. When he was injured at the end of 2005 it didn't hurt him much because he didn't have many points to defend. But if something goes wrong during Indian Wells, e.g. and he's out for four months,

*poof*

2,500 points disappear.

and then what is his form upon returning? Does anyone think Safin still has the same movement post-knee troubles?

GOD_BLESS_RAFA
03-01-2007, 12:04 AM
Do you mean number 1 in ATP Race maybe? if it is the case it might be possible to dethrone him (but I have doubts unless he is not motivated while playing or is injured)
But if you are talking about number 1 in ATP rank that is still a long long long way to go...HE IS TOO Far away...if he keeps competing and let's say end up as a finalist in every competition not a winner no one can catch him still :) :) :)

Well it is easier to catch number 2 no?

caulcano
03-01-2007, 12:48 AM
You just keep dreaming my friend, especialy those 3 bogus options you chose. There is more chance of Safin retiring before the end of 2007 then him being #1 ever again. There is also more chance of Federer winning the next 20 slams then Haas ever winning 1 at this point.

I think everyone can dream. I dream FED wins 28 slams (twice as many as SAMP) but only in my dreams.

Also if Federer is boring and not a complete player in your view do you consider Roddick, Haas, or Safin a "complete" player by comparision. ROTFL!

There are some people who thinks totally domination like FEDs is boring. I'm in awe of what he does on the court. You just know he'll do a few amazing shots, that will light up any of his matches.

pound cat
03-01-2007, 03:06 AM
I am a FED fan too, so I'm not trying to knock the guy.

But, I bet you didn't think he would be THIS good. I don't think anyone did to be honest.


I wonder if Federer always knew he would be this good? Was it always believing that he was better than anyone else that made him as good as he is? Plus, of course, ambition, work ethic, etc., the antithesis of Safin who says his twenties are the time for enjoying all aspects of life.

pound cat
03-01-2007, 03:16 AM
They just showed the play of the Day on TV and it showed Federer hitting an out of this world between the legs passing shot in his match at Dubai yesterday. He was laughing at the replay during the break bet games.

He knows he's "just too good"

fastdunn
03-01-2007, 09:56 AM
Baghdatis is a great ball striker.

Djokovic is not as great ball striker as Baghdatis is but he plays
more mature game and great mover.

Gasquet is kinda stalling. But when he gets more mature, he'll be very
dangerous.

If Gasquet has a hot streak in a slam (like Baghdatis of 2006 AO, Gonzo
of 2007 AO or Mikhail Youzney of 2006 US Open etc....), I think he will
win the whole thing unlike other guys...

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 10:27 AM
Baghdatis is a great ball striker.

Djokovic is not as great ball striker as Baghdatis is but he plays
more mature game and great mover.

Gasquet is kinda stalling. But when he gets more mature, he'll be very
dangerous.

If Gasquet has a hot streak in a slam (like Baghdatis of 2006 AO, Gonzo
of 2007 AO or Mikhail Youzney of 2006 US Open etc....), I think he will
win the whole thing unlike other guys...

What do you think a hot Gasquet looks like? The 2007 Canadian Open was Gasquet's best event of 2007 reaching a Masters final and beating all of Berdych, Murray, and Blake in straight sets so I believe that is a "hot" Gasquet. Yet he still lost to a sluggish Federer in 3 sets in the final. If he couldnt beat an off Federer in a best 2-of-3 while "hot" he will have a very hard time doing it in a grand slam vs Federer in a best 3-of-5 so no I dont a "hot" Gasquet will win a slam unless he avoids Federer and probably Nadal who I dont think he has the mindset to beat.

I am not as impressed by Baghdatis as you seem to be. I think he is a just a temporary top 10 and dont agree he is a better ball striker then Djokovic. The only thing he might be over Djokovic is being physicaly and mentaly stronger right now, once Djokovic becomes fitter and more able to handle the rigors of tour, and tougher mentaly he will be much better then a player like Baghdatis is.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 11:18 AM
I'll come back & apologize - even if I see Roger reatain no#1 during 2008 , He goes down this year . And he goes down BAD .

He may yet prove to be no#1 caz of all the momentum he is carrying this yr (2007) - but he ain't gonna go lucky in yr2008 .
About the new no#1 , I know these are not good choices ( heck - we don't have Sampras,Agassi ) but safin has been no.1 , so has Roddick & haas was to be no.1 ( before he has shoulder injury - he looks gd now ) - but I agree they are not good choices - but who else am I gonna pick ?
I don like Rafa , never gonna pick him . he is like hewitt - 2yr fire atbest.

Rog has been great in 2006 - I loved the 2006 Rog , but this yr (2007) - he seems different , he has a chink in the armour - thats enough to take him down . He got plain lucky at AUS2007 - his luck is not gonna save him everytime .
My predictions if he plays like AUS2007 : R16 at French , 2nd , qtrs at WIMBY , R16 in USO at best.

Nick Irons
03-01-2007, 11:58 AM
Federer still being Number one in 2010 ?

That's funny

holera
03-01-2007, 12:35 PM
I'll come back & apologize - even if I see Roger reatain no#1 during 2008 , He goes down this year . And he goes down BAD .

He may yet prove to be no#1 caz of all the momentum he is carrying this yr (2007) - but he ain't gonna go lucky in yr2008 .
About the new no#1 , I know these are not good choices ( heck - we don't have Sampras,Agassi ) but safin has been no.1 , so has Roddick & haas was to be no.1 ( before he has shoulder injury - he looks gd now ) - but I agree they are not good choices - but who else am I gonna pick ?
I don like Rafa , never gonna pick him . he is like hewitt - 2yr fire atbest.

Rog has been great in 2006 - I loved the 2006 Rog , but this yr (2007) - he seems different , he has a chink in the armour - thats enough to take him down . He got plain lucky at AUS2007 - his luck is not gonna save him everytime .
My predictions if he plays like AUS2007 : R16 at French , 2nd , qtrs at WIMBY , R16 in USO at best.

if federer plays as he did in a major in which he didn't even lose 1 set, he'll be eliminated from all others early????

if he plays as he did in AO, he's much more likely to win all 4 than to lose in 3 early.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 01:00 PM
"if federer plays as he did in a major in which he didn't even lose 1 set, he'll be eliminated from all others early????

if he plays as he did in AO, he's much more likely to win all 4 than to lose in 3 early."

I stand with My Prediction . I SAID I'LL APOLOGIZE if he proves me wrong . FED GOES DOWN THIS YEAR . HE GOES DOWN BAD ( outta top ten in 2008 ) . Yeah , Yeah - the old injured routine will come into play . but FED will go down this year . I'd have wished that it happened the other way round - the other players gotten better , but it's gonna be FED doing BAD . Why I say this ? I'll explain in JAN2008 after You see the fall from grace. Lotta , respect & good wishes to FED - but he just aint the same as 2006.

That shows how weak the competetion is that FED playing at a 40% GS_winning_evel won the AUS2007 . Only guy that played well was Gonzo , too bad he ran outta gas in the final ( he had 1 less day of rest than FED ) & gonzo was plainly UNLUCKY to lose that 1st set . If he won the first set it w'd have been a different story . I'm waiting to see gonzo play FED next time on hardcourts .
FED's performance in the AUS2007 was simply
"PATHETIC" even by his own standards . Thats why I say FED lost his EDGE - now what is taking him through is pure momentum - it's not gonna last .

holera
03-01-2007, 01:38 PM
I stand with My Prediction . I SAID I'LL APOLOGIZE if he proves me wrong . FED GOES DOWN THIS YEAR . HE GOES DOWN BAD ( outta top ten in 2008 ) . Yeah , Yeah - the old injured routine will come into play . but FED will go down this year . I'd have wished that it happened the other way round - the other players gotten better , but it's gonna be FED doing BAD . Why I say this ? I'll explain in JAN2008 after You see the fall from grace. Lotta , respect & good wishes to FED - but he just aint the same as 2006.

That shows how weak the competetion is that FED playing at a 40% GS_winning_evel won the AUS2007 . Only guy that played well was Gonzo , too bad he ran outta gas in the final ( he had 1 less day of rest than FED ) & gonzo was plainly UNLUCKY to lose that 1st set . If he won the first set it w'd have been a different story . I'm waiting to see gonzo play FED next time on hardcourts .
FED's performance in the AUS2007 was simply
"PATHETIC" even by his own standards . Thats why I say FED lost his EDGE - now what is taking him through is pure momentum - it's not gonna last.
:shock:

you're being serious, aren't you?

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 01:49 PM
Yes , I'm 100% serious . I'm a damn honest guy - I'll come back to this board & APOLOGIZE NAKED WHILE TYPING , ok ? I'm that serious .

I'll even lick the monitor - what other humiliation you want me to go through ? I'm that serious .

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 01:56 PM
I'm so so MAD caz I want good TENNIS & I'm simply am not getting any , even FED lowered his standards caz he knows the competetion is so bad that He even won a slam playing bad .

I remember a time when if there was a courier-sampras or agassi-sampras match or a rafter-agassi or something like that I used to clear up schedule caz I knew it was gonna be good . Even the middle field had depth - rios , chang , kafelnikov - all upsetters ANY DAY on their day - all the guys in the top 20 had potential to beat each other .

Right now - the level of tennis just plain aint good - including FED . Shame .

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 02:00 PM
larlarbd who pray tell is this person who is going to knock Federer out of the #1 spot this year?

Rios, Chang, and Kafelnikov are nothing special, most of todays players were kicking their butts when they were coming up.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 02:36 PM
Ahh , that is the saddest thing - it's not that a player came through better than FED , it will be a sad end to a legend who burnt-out i.e. FED lowering his bar & going down becaz of himself . The field will be left open for couple of morons like Nadal or Nalbandian - who don't deserve no#1.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 02:37 PM
Curses !!!

holera
03-01-2007, 02:48 PM
I'm so so MAD caz I want good TENNIS & I'm simply am not getting any , even FED lowered his standards caz he knows the competetion is so bad that He even won a slam playing bad .

I remember a time when if there was a courier-sampras or agassi-sampras match or a rafter-agassi or something like that I used to clear up schedule caz I knew it was gonna be good . Even the middle field had depth - rios , chang , kafelnikov - all upsetters ANY DAY on their day - all the guys in the top 20 had potential to beat each other .

Right now - the level of tennis just plain aint good - including FED . Shame .


federer played worse when he won AO 06 and USO 05 than he did in AO 07.

so you think federer isn't an all-time great? you think the vast majority of tennis fans in the world are wrong about him? you think countless current and former players, even including legends like laver and rosewall and kramer and mcenroe are wrong about him?

90s was basically same as today. overall depth is greater today, but there were probably a few more elite players in 90s. but federer is so superb that he makes the competition look very weak.

close matches aren't necessarily better than blowouts. there is also quality of tennis. the level federer reaches is greater than any i've ever seen, that is why he doesn't play many close matches.

david22
03-01-2007, 02:50 PM
Gasquet has admittedly not had a great start of year so far(especially comparing to Djokovic and Murray) but i think we musn t burry him too soon.
don t forget that at 20, this guy has already won 4 titles,made 2 Master Finals(both lost only against Federer) and beat Federer at 18 saving a few match points(which shows he can be though mentally if he wants)........Djokovic and Murray have yet to achieve those sort of results ,especially in the Master Series.

i remain convinced that Gasquet will have a huge breakthrough this season.
where and when??
that's the question(i would say Wimbledon personnally)

Gasquet and Murray are for me the 2 youngsters who will worry Federer the most in the next few years

david22
03-01-2007, 02:56 PM
What do you think a hot Gasquet looks like? The 2007 Canadian Open was Gasquet's best event of 2007 reaching a Masters final and beating all of Berdych, Murray, and Blake in straight sets so I believe that is a "hot" Gasquet. Yet he still lost to a sluggish Federer in 3 sets in the final. .

well,Federer was not that sluggish......for example,today against Djokovic,he played way more badly than against Gasquet....and yet Djokovic didn t beat him.

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 02:59 PM
Gasquet has admittedly not had a great start of year so far(especially comparing to Djokovic and Murray) but i think we musn t burry him too soon.
don t forget that at 20, this guy has already won 4 titles,made 2 Master Finals(both lost only against Federer) and beat Federer at 18 saving a few match points(which shows he can be though mentally if he wants)........Djokovic and Murray have yet to achieve those sort of results ,especially in the Master Series.

i remain convinced that Gasquet will have a huge breakthrough this season.
where and when??
that's the question(i would say Wimbledon personnally)

Gasquet and Murray are for me the 2 youngsters who will worry Federer the most in the next few years


Gasquet has more potential then Baghdatis and Monfils, less then Djokovic and Murray, and about same as Berdych. That is how it is.

As for Gasquet's results in Masters Series compared to Murray and Djokovic remember Gasquet is a year older then them. That is not alot in a way, but it is alot the same when they are that young. Gasquet's best Masters result on a hard court a year ago was a semifinal. Murray's best now is a semifinal, no difference except Gasquet had a Masters final in the weak Hamburg event where most of the top players dont play. Djokovic has already made a slam quarterfinal which Gasquet has not done. Murray has a win over Roddick at Wimbledon, what is Gasquet's similarily big win in grand slam so far?

Gasquet's win over Federer was only on clay, Murray beat Federer on hard courts which is much more impressive.

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 03:02 PM
well,Federer was not that sluggish......for example,today against Djokovic,he played way more badly than against Gasquet....and yet Djokovic didn t beat him.

I did not see Federer play Djokovic today unfortunately so I dont know how his performance there compared to the Canadian Open final with Gasquet, whether it was better or worse I cant say. Federer wasnt playing that well at the Canadian Open for his standards, any tournament Federer is losing sets to 4 or 5 different players is when he is struggling, and for him he really struggled with his tennis in the final but still won over Gasquet playing his best which shows a big gap between the two. Taking him to a tough match in an event he only has 1 or 2 matches that go extra sets is more impressive.

david22
03-01-2007, 03:02 PM
Gasquet has more potential then Baghdatis and Monfils, less then Djokovic and Murray.


less potential than Djokovic?? i'm really not sure about that to say the least.
Seriously,what do you find impressive in Djokovic's game???
Gasqut has in my opinion a much better touch than Djokovic(see his volley skills) and more importantly,he has a killer shot contrary to him(the backhand)

david22
03-01-2007, 03:04 PM
I did not see Federer play Djokovic today unfortunately so I dont know how his performance there compared to the Canadian Open final with Gasquet, whether it was better or worse I cant say. Federer wasnt playing that well at the Canadian Open for his standards, any tournament Federer is losing sets to 4 or 5 different players is when he is struggling, and for him he really struggled with his tennis in the final but still won over Gasquet playing his best which shows a big gap between the two. Taking him to a tough match in an event he only has 1 or 2 matches that go extra sets is more impressive.

well,even when Federer is playing slugish,i don t know many players who can win a set 6-2 against him......that's all i have to say

david22
03-01-2007, 03:06 PM
Gasquet has more potential then Baghdatis and Monfils, less then Djokovic and Murray, and about same as Berdych. That is how it is.

As for Gasquet's results in Masters Series compared to Murray and Djokovic remember Gasquet is a year older then them.

well at 18,he had already made a MS final.....while Djokovic and Murray still haven t done that(Djokovic haven t even beaten Federer yet while Gasquet had already done that at 18 )

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 03:13 PM
less potential than Djokovic?? i'm really not sure about that to say the least. Seriously,what do you find impressive in Djokovic's game???
Gasqut has in my opinion a much better touch than Djokovic(see his volley skills) and more importantly,he has a killer shot contrary to him(the backhand)

well,even when Federer is playing slugish,i don t know many players who can win a set 6-2 against him......that's all i have to say

well at 18,he had already made a MS final.....while Djokovic and Murray still haven t done that(Djokovic haven t even beaten Federer yet while Gasquet had already done that at 1

Gasquet's Masters final at 18 was Hamburg which you probably dont need to be told is one of the weakest Masters events because alot of the top players dont even show up for it. It is the 3rd Masters event on clay, and nobody wants to play all 3 Masters events on clay, some skip another one but most skip Hamburg. Nadal for example didnt play the year Gasquet lost to Federer in the final, if Nadal had played almost definitely it would have been a Nadal-
Federer final since Gasquet went 0-2 vs Nadal on clay that year, and lost to Federer easily in the final as it was.

Gasquet's win over Federer was on clay, there should be a seperate category of Federer on clay and Federer on everything else.

You say Gasquet has a killer backhand and Djokovic has no killer shot. I instead say Djokovic has a killer forehand and backhand, while Gasquet just a killer backhand. Gasquet volleys better then Djokovic sure, but since when is that part of success in the baseline-oriented mens game today.

Yeah winning a set from Federer 6-2 anyday is impressive. I wont dispute that. That doesnt just make me think Gasquet is a better up and comer then somebody who didnt do that though.

TheTruth
03-01-2007, 03:14 PM
The unspoken assumptions:

- Federer will be injury free
- Federer stays motivated
- Federer's current level doesn't drop
- Young guns don't unlock Federer's game etc..

Five years is a freaking long time to predict in a sport as fragile as tennis.. Heck, five years ago Federer didn't even had a slam. And you are just trying to sell us that he will still be #1 five years from now. )

Ha ha ha! ROFL, assumptions and predictions are true though, aren't they? Ha ha ha!

holera
03-01-2007, 03:16 PM
i think gasquet's MS win and MS final loss to federer were more impressive than murray's MS win.

federer had just won canadian open, and had no rest after several 3 set matches. he was clearly very tired. some thought he tanked to prepare for USO.

gasquet actually outplayed federer when he was not dead-tired (although federer wasn't at his best). gasquet was playing brilliantly in that 1st set in canadian final.

however, i do think murray is more developed than gasquet.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 03:23 PM
federer played worse when he won AO 06 and USO 05 than he did in AO 07.

so you think federer isn't an all-time great? you think the vast majority of tennis fans in the world are wrong about him? you think countless current and former players, even including legends like laver and rosewall and kramer and mcenroe are wrong about him?

90s was basically same as today. overall depth is greater today, but there were probably a few more elite players in 90s. but federer is so superb that he makes the competition look very weak.

close matches aren't necessarily better than blowouts. there is also quality of tennis. the level federer reaches is greater than any i've ever seen, that is why he doesn't play many close matches.

What makes a Tennis_player "GOAT"is SUSTAINED_GREATNESS .
I.E. win consistently for 10-12yrs time = Agassi , Sampras , Connors . Change his game to win more easily . FED has ZERO room to improve ( except coming to net more often , instead improving he is going down hill ).
Countless current & former players said what they said on 2yrs judgement - very short time to be considered great . I'll still consider him great - he is , top 5 greats forsure ( no#5 in my book ) . NOT GOAT . He has yet to prove the greatest measuring stick - TIME . He is no Agassi who'll fall to rank#141 & yet come bak & win everything . He is no Sampras who'd switch to full strenght 2nd serve & bak it up with 2nd serve S/V . HE IS NO GOAT . One dimensional Player with a net game rated 4/10. Quality of Tennis ? 7/10. Not a Borg like 10/10 - caz he had McENROE. FED has who ? Nadal - lolz , & he lost his ground to that 'thing' after winning 1st set 6/1 at French ? . Far From GOAT . The field competetive is so Bad that a pure-clay courter reaches WIMBY final ? You still say FED GOAT ? against this competetion ? Your champ is a great Tennis player , NOT GOAT .

Ahh , Yes - I've watched every single match FED played after 99 , either live or dwed . I dont have a bad collection of his matches either - along with Borg , McENROE , Sampras , Agassi , Boris , Edberg & many more . Where do I put the FED tapes/DVDs ? Bottomshelf , before edberg not even before Boris . FED shows class & quality as of You speak - I promise I'll move him up as I did his 2006 tapes before edberg . BUT is he top-shelf to me ? Not Yet .

A TRUE CHAMPION PROVES HIMSELF AGAINST CHAMPIONS. FED is a one-dimensional player .
NO TRUE CHAMPION .

Mind You , still great - caz he makes it work , but not GOAT.

holera
03-01-2007, 03:58 PM
What makes a Tennis_player "GOAT"is SUSTAINED_GREATNESS .
I.E. win consistently for 10-12yrs time = Agassi , Sampras , Connors . Change his game to win more easily . FED has ZERO room to improve ( except coming to net more often , instead improving he is going down hill ).
Countless current & former players said what they said on 2yrs judgement - very short time to be considered great . I'll still consider him great - he is , top 5 greats forsure ( no#5 in my book ) . NOT GOAT . He has yet to prove the greatest measuring stick - TIME . He is no Agassi who'll fall to rank#141 & yet come bak & win everything . He is no Sampras who'd switch to full strenght 2nd serve & bak it up with 2nd serve S/V . HE IS NO GOAT . One dimensional Player with a net game rated 4/10. Quality of Tennis ? 7/10. Not a Borg like 10/10 - caz he had McENROE. FED has who ? Nadal - lolz , & he lost his ground to that 'thing' after winning 1st set 6/1 at French ? . Far From GOAT . The field competetive is so Bad that a pure-clay courter reaches WIMBY final ? You still say FED GOAT ? against this competetion ? Your champ is a great Tennis player , NOT GOAT .

Ahh , Yes - I've watched every single match FED played after 99 , either live or dwed . I dont have a bad collection of his matches either - along with Borg , McENROE , Sampras , Agassi , Boris , Edberg & many more . Where do I put the FED tapes/DVDs ? Bottomshelf , before edberg not even before Boris . FED shows class & quality as of You speak - I promise I'll move him up as I did his 2006 tapes before edberg . BUT is he top-shelf to me ? Not Yet .

A TRUE CHAMPION PROVES HIMSELF AGAINST CHAMPIONS. FED is a one-dimensional player .
NO TRUE CHAMPION .

Mind You , still great - caz he makes it work , but not GOAT.

borg mcenroe agassi edberg had <10 years of greatness. and i really don't see how falling to 141 can be good thing.

so you think there are only 4 players in history who are better than a player who is a 7/10 with a net game of 4/10????

federer is in fact still improving. his backhand is clearly better than it used to be.
you say federer is a 1-dimensional player. what does that make agassi or connors or mcenroe or edberg or sampras? none of them were as strong defensively or as good on all surfaces, nor did they have as great a variety of shots.

nadal reached the final because he had a very weak draw, and wimbledon is slower than it used to be. how did mal washington (!!) reach the finals in 90s?

being the 2nd best claycourter in the world, and best on hard and grass is a great accomplishment. no one had reached all 4 finals since laver.

not 2 years--it has been 4 years, including the best 3-year stretch in decades, maybe ever. laver said something about federer being 1 of the best ever this year.
if federer is already 5th, and TIME is the factor, why are you so strident?

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 04:09 PM
Sampras and Connors substained many years of greatness, saying Agassi did is a joke though. Agassi did not substain 10-12 years of greatness. He had years dropping out of the top 10, even a year dropping out of the top 100, mixed in with years of winning slams, and being in the top 3. That is not substained greatness.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 04:19 PM
hmm , I do sound a bit Harsh . Sorry Abt that.

But Agassi had 10< years of greatness ? WOW . from 1992 WIMBY to 2003 AUS is to you 10< , I didn't say the others you name had 10yrs .

I stand by my rating of 4/10 - he may be a 3/10 in volleys caz the opposition is so poor .

yes, quality 7/10 ( I was being generous ) - thats why he is not GOAT caz he plays against 5/10 or maybe 6/10 quality players.

Mal Washington was NOT a clay-specialist , he earned his place in the finals as HE PLAYED WELL , that match against Todd was truely great. Mal Washington didn't have a weak draw . c'mon now . Respect .

2006/2005= 2yrs , end of 2004 he wasn't receiving that many acknowledgements from Former Pro's . Was I wrong to say 2yrs ?

YES YES , GREAT PLAYER . NOT GOAT . NEVER WILL BE . WONT EVEN BE IN THE 12SLAM CLUB . I did say I'll come bak in 2008 Jan , didn't I ? LOL.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 04:24 PM
Sampras and Connors substained many years of greatness, saying Agassi did is a joke though. Agassi did not substain 10-12 years of greatness. He had years dropping out of the top 10, even a year dropping out of the top 100, mixed in with years of winning slams, and being in the top 3. That is not substained greatness.

Umm , The comeback was worth GREATNESS !!! Proves my point . & even a rank#141 agassi was deadlier than no#1 FED.
I'd say Agassi's GREATNESS is sustained caz he was a slam winner , then fell off but then had the GREATNESS in him to come bak harder ( IN A VERY TOUGH PLAYING FIELD - UNLIKE FED's ) - if thats not GOAT , I dunno what is - surely not FED .

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 05:20 PM
hmm , I do sound a bit Harsh . Sorry Abt that.

But Agassi had 10< years of greatness ? WOW . from 1992 WIMBY to 2003 AUS is to you 10< , I didn't say the others you name had 10yrs.

He wasnt great all those years, some years he wasnt even that good. He dropped out of the top 100 1 of those years, he dropped out of the top 10 more then once of those years. He had greatness many years apart, it does not mean he substained greatness all those years, unless you consider mediocrity greatness for some of those years in between. The longest he substained greatness was really 1999-2003, where he won atleast 1 slam each year, was in the top 5 at years end 4 of those 5 years, and top 10 the other one. So 5 years is the longest Agassi ever substained greatness if you are being as generous as possible.

If you are talking about how long his greatness stretched that is different. So which is it, the length he stretched his greatness out from one end to other, or how long he "substained greatness". Years of mediocrity as Agassi had multiple of between years of greatness, are not years of substaining greatness.

federerfanatic
03-01-2007, 05:22 PM
Umm , The comeback was worth GREATNESS !!! Proves my point . & even a rank#141 agassi was deadlier than no#1 FED.


Deadlier how? It is deadlier to lose to Christian Vinck in the finals of a Challenger event and go 12-12 in ATP tour events(as he played challengers I have to put that official title on his record) then to win 3 slams every year like Fed? :p Ok in that case Paul Goldstein is currently deadlier then Federer. I am glad Federer is not as deadly as Goldstein and Agassi in 1997 in that case. I would rather be great then deadly and suckier.

larlarbd
03-01-2007, 05:37 PM
Deadlier how? It is deadlier to lose to Christian Vinck in the finals of a Challenger event and go 12-12 in ATP tour events(as he played challengers I have to put that official title on his record) then to win 3 slams every year like Fed? :p Ok in that case Paul Goldstein is currently deadlier then Federer. I am glad Federer is not as deadly as Goldstein and Agassi in 1997 in that case. I would rather be great then deadly and suckier.

I never questioned FED , he is indeed great as You say . My point is not GOAT . Not EVEN a top4 . One more thing I forgot to mention - Agassi did have sustained GREATNESS - his titles , didn't FED just touched that record ? number of titles record was held by Agassi - He did it in a fairly long preiod of time with A VERY GOOD OPPOSING playing field .

Agassi - suckier ? Not in my book . I SAID A rank#141 Agassi was > no#1 (2007) FED - QUALITYWISE .

With FED doing so well no one will predict a fall , I said - if I'm wrong I'll come bak & will apologize for my comments now . It's a very big statement , specially in my position caz on what basis am I predicting this ? I'm putting my prestige on the line - caz I know FED is not GOAT .

Lets see who's Tennis_sense is better . wait till Jan2008.
Still , wish FED the best , but my head says - FED = DOWN.

holera
03-01-2007, 06:18 PM
you have no reason to apologize for anything, whether you're wrong or right.

how in hell can volleying ability be assessed according to strength of competition??

you were wrong to say 2 years. i remember a headline from 03. "the 1st of many?" this was after federer won wimbledon, and 5-6 months before he became the best player. many were already expecting him to win several wimbledons. federer won 3 majors in 04. many people were expecting him to become an all-time great.

agassi did not have sustained greatness. he was great, then good, then mediocre, then great, then good. he was never as good as federer.
i have no idea how someone could even think agassi was better. the only things he did better was return 2nd serve and grind.

caulcano
03-02-2007, 12:53 AM
Rog has been great in 2006 - I loved the 2006 Rog , but this yr (2007) - he seems different , he has a chink in the armour - thats enough to take him down .

FED has played in 1 tournament this year (exclude Kooyong & Dubai) & didn't lose a set. Everyone can see he's improved one area of weakness through 2006, which was the BH. Care to elaborate on this 'chink in the armor' you see?

He got plain lucky at AUS2007 - his luck is not gonna save him everytime .

Luck at AUS'07? I call it talent.

My predictions if he plays like AUS2007 : R16 at French , 2nd , qtrs at WIMBY , R16 in USO at best.

My predictions would be calendar GS.

caulcano
03-02-2007, 01:17 AM
What makes a Tennis_player "GOAT"is SUSTAINED_GREATNESS .
I.E. win consistently for 10-12yrs time = Agassi , Sampras , Connors . Change his game to win more easily .

FED changed from S&V to more of a baseliner to dominate. He has improved his BH in 2006 and we can all see the difference. Besides FED is halfway through his career, so I'm sure he'll improve his game IF he feels the need to.

Change his game to win more easily.

What the hell does that mean?

FED has ZERO room to improve ( except coming to net more often , instead improving he is going down hill ).

Err, you just answered your own question. Also, he's always looking to improve, like he did in 2006 with his BH.

Countless current & former players said what they said on 2yrs judgement - very short time to be considered great . I'll still consider him great - he is , top 5 greats forsure ( no#5 in my book ) . NOT GOAT . He has yet to prove the greatest measuring stick - TIME .

I agree, but I'd put him in about #3.

He is no Agassi who'll fall to rank#141 & yet come bak & win everything .

Agassi went partying. FED's not gonna drop to #141 then win everything, to prove he can. That's just stupid.

He is no Sampras who'd switch to full strenght 2nd serve & bak it up with 2nd serve S/V .

S&V don't work aswell as before.

One dimensional Player with a net game rated 4/10. Quality of Tennis ? 7/10. Not a Borg like 10/10 - caz he had McENROE. FED has who ? Nadal - lolz , & he lost his ground to that 'thing' after winning 1st set 6/1 at French ? . Far From GOAT . The field competetive is so Bad that a pure-clay courter reaches WIMBY final ? You still say FED GOAT ? against this competetion ? Your champ is a great Tennis player, NOT GOAT.

If you can't S&V & win then you ain't gonna see his net game.

malakas
03-02-2007, 01:20 AM
Murray will be the GOAT and win 10 straight GS.Then he will become the last king of scotland and rule the world.:D

caulcano
03-02-2007, 01:22 AM
YES YES , GREAT PLAYER . NOT GOAT . NEVER WILL BE . WONT EVEN BE IN THE 12SLAM CLUB . I did say I'll come bak in 2008 Jan , didn't I ? LOL.

By dismissing that FED will never be GOAT, you've just declared that no matter what FED does it'll never be enough. You'll probably be alone in that assumption.

mikhail
03-02-2007, 01:47 AM
what about korolev in the future he might be a real challange but really 2010 we dont know who will be around then Murray will be great but i think someone else will be better. we will see in 2010 guys lol

david22
03-02-2007, 02:30 AM
You say Gasquet has a killer backhand and Djokovic has no killer shot. I instead say Djokovic has a killer forehand and backhand, while Gasquet just a killer backhand. Gasquet volleys better then Djokovic sure, but since when is that part of success in the baseline-oriented mens game today.
.


seriously,you're having a laugh.

fastdunn
03-02-2007, 09:45 AM
What do you think a hot Gasquet looks like? The 2007 Canadian Open was Gasquet's best event of 2007 reaching a Masters final and beating all of Berdych, Murray, and Blake in straight sets so I believe that is a "hot" Gasquet. Yet he still lost to a sluggish Federer in 3 sets in the final. If he couldnt beat an off Federer in a best 2-of-3 while "hot" he will have a very hard time doing it in a grand slam vs Federer in a best 3-of-5 so no I dont a "hot" Gasquet will win a slam unless he avoids Federer and probably Nadal who I dont think he has the mindset to beat.

I am not as impressed by Baghdatis as you seem to be. I think he is a just a temporary top 10 and dont agree he is a better ball striker then Djokovic. The only thing he might be over Djokovic is being physicaly and mentaly stronger right now, once Djokovic becomes fitter and more able to handle the rigors of tour, and tougher mentaly he will be much better then a player like Baghdatis is.


Gasquet's best result of 2006 was made by playing "steady" game.
It was his conscious effort of 2006.

All young players will have a growth spurt which often accompanied by
zoning episode (Baghdatis of 2006 AO, Gonzo at 2007 AO, Youznhy of
2006 US Open, well complete zoning of Sampras in 1990 US Open,
Hewitt and Safin at US Open).

When Gasquet has one, I think he will be likely to win the whole thing
unlike Gonzo and Youznhy.

The whole thing about talent and potential is an eye of the beholder thing
and very sublective. So it's natural that you and I have different opinion on
Baghdatis and Djokovic.

IMHO, Baghdatis has much cleaner contacts when he hits the ball.
Djokovic, despite an elite player, does not appear to have cleaner
contacts (at least to me).

That doesn't necessarily how successful a player will be.
Petra Korda and Rios had clean contact.
Sampras and Agassi has super clean contacts.
Hewitt did not have clean contact but he has been very successful.

Spider
03-21-2009, 04:36 AM
I gaurantee Federer wont lose the #1 ranking in 2009, no chance in hell. The earliest he might is 2010. I personally dont believe at all Federer will lose the #1 ranking in 2010, I believe that is more likely in 2012 or so, but the earliest I believe there is a chance of it happening is 2010.

The though of Monfils or Baghdatis dethroning Federer at #1 makes me laugh hystericaly. Those guys are barely top 10 caliber in the future. Berdych has a big power game but mentally he is a flake. Gasquet has versatilty but not the power or weapons needed to be #1 even if he gets it together mentally.

So I agree with the person who says Murray and Djokovic are the best 2 chances. Definitely Murray first for me, but Djokovic second.

This is a funny post (and thread). :)

Leublu tennis
03-21-2009, 05:07 AM
Thats the problem with forecasts and this one was made in Feb 2007:

Andy Murray is the only of the current ATP players who could knock Fed out of #1 by 2010 or later. Gasquet, Berdych, Monfils, Djokovic, Baghdatis, Roddick, Hewitt, Ljubicic, Robredo, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Safin, Nadal, Davydenko, none of those will ever take over the #1 ranking from Federer.

I guess two years ago Federer looked invincible to *******s.

Zaragoza
03-21-2009, 06:22 AM
This thread is a good lesson to new posters that aren't aware of what was said on these boards some years ago when Federer was dominating.