PDA

View Full Version : Is Federer's consistency hurting him?


egn
04-15-2009, 06:20 PM
Fed has made it to the semis at least at every tournament this year..but there is one problem.

Doha - lost to Murray
AO- lost to Nadal
IW- lost to Murray
Miami - lost to Djokovic

Is it possible that although he is being consistently good he is only hurting himself more as he is racking up losses against his rivals due to his stubbornness and unwillingness to change his game? Opinions.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:33 PM
Fed has made it to the semis at least at every tournament this year..but there is one problem.

Doha - lost to Murray
AO- lost to Nadal
IW- lost to Murray
Miami - lost to Djokovic

Is it possible that although he is being consistently good he is only hurting himself more as he is racking up losses against his rivals due to his stubbornness and unwillingness to change his game? Opinions.

Do u suggest he tanks early round matches or take some time off? :)

I have considered Fed do something of the sorts actually. I think it would actually help as strange as it seems. These late round losses to the top players can only be hurting him mentally. Fed is obviously not the type of player who thrives on pressure. Its very evident

egn
04-15-2009, 06:34 PM
Do u suggest he tanks early round matches or take some time off? :)

I have considered Fed do something of the sorts actually. I think it would actually help as strange as it seems. These late round losses to the top players can only be hurting him mentally.

LOL I don't suggest that..xD however it might help who knows. His week in and week out consistency is a great thing for him but unless he actually wins so matches against those three guys...

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:36 PM
LOL I don't suggest that..xD however it might help who knows. His week in and week out consistency is a great thing for him but unless he actually wins so matches against those three guys...

It may actually put more pressure on Fed than he can handle disposing of the players he should beat and losing to the top of the heap. I think the best thing for Fed is to actually take some time off. And I think he eventually will if this season does not bode well for him. I wouldnt be surprised the least bit. I always said Fed has one problem and thats dealing with pressure and situations which test his mental toughness. Im sure he prefers how it used to be 04-07

dugger5688
04-15-2009, 06:46 PM
I'm sorry but you don't rack up 13 Grand Slam titles with a weak mental game.

saram
04-15-2009, 06:48 PM
Fed has a baby on the way, recently married, found a field that caught him, etc. He is probably dealing with more than any of us can imagine--let alone play professional tennis on a daily basis with all of these other things going on in his life.

He was the best. The field caught and surpassed him. Time will tell if he has another gear or not.

I personally don't believe he does at this point in time.

GameSampras
04-15-2009, 06:48 PM
I'm sorry but you don't rack up 13 Grand Slam titles with a weak mental game.

Sure u do when the rest of the competition is so far behind talent wise as it was 04-06. Fed didnt need a mental game. His opposition was so frightened of him during that time period, he could just walk on the court and they would accept defeat. They were the mental ones, outside of Nadal. Not Fed. Fed's mental game was tested by Safin (one of if not theee biggest headcase ever) and he outdid Fed at the AO in a tight match in a match of mental toughness.

egn
04-15-2009, 06:49 PM
I'm sorry but you don't rack up 13 Grand Slam titles with a weak mental game.

It was not always weak it has weakened with the growing stress of aging, losing some your skill, new young faster and strong rivals that can dish out more than you because they are 5 years younger and in the peak or about to hit their peak while he is two to three years past his. That is hurting his mental game. Fed was though a bit of flake he calmed down, I believe there was a time he was compared to Safin as he did have his anger fits in his earlier years..or I might be mistaken, but I remember 98-01 Fed being a spitfire.

helloworld
04-15-2009, 07:25 PM
Fed has made it to the semis at least at every tournament this year..but there is one problem.

Doha - lost to Murray
AO- lost to Nadal
IW- lost to Murray
Miami - lost to Djokovic

Is it possible that although he is being consistently good he is only hurting himself more as he is racking up losses against his rivals due to his stubbornness and unwillingness to change his game? Opinions.

So you want him to lose to a nobody instead?? :confused:

egn
04-15-2009, 07:41 PM
So you want him to lose to a nobody instead?? :confused:

I am saying it would show more signs of aging and that he would not be facing the lopsided records that he is facing. Are random losses to somebody ranked 20-50 is not a huge deal...losing to somebody at the top over and over..so that your record is 2-8 is bad...worse maybe.

sh@de
04-15-2009, 07:58 PM
Sure u do when the rest of the competition is so far behind talent wise as it was 04-06. Fed didnt need a mental game. His opposition was so frightened of him during that time period, he could just walk on the court and they would accept defeat. They were the mental ones, outside of Nadal. Not Fed. Fed's mental game was tested by Safin (one of if not theee biggest headcase ever) and he outdid Fed at the AO in a tight match in a match of mental toughness.

Here we go again... this thread is doomed.

grafselesfan
04-15-2009, 08:50 PM
I'm sorry but you don't rack up 13 Grand Slam titles with a weak mental game.

You can if the competition sucks. The field from 1999-2006 (except for Agassi and Sampras for some parts of 1999) was overall the worst in mens tennis history and Federer took full advantage. 2001-2003 was even worse than 2004-2006 and such limited talents as Hewitt and Roddick took even bigger advantage of that. Bottom line though Federer is a very talented player with an incomplete game, and a very suspect mental game. Now faced with tougher competition he is still doing quite well but coming up short often vs more worthy opponents, and often folding mentally when it gets to crunch time. His mental game is weak, and would have hurt him alot more if the field was tougher like it is now while he was racking up so many slams.

In 2007 Federer did manage to gut out 3 slams facing improving competition so credit him for that, but since that improving competition improving even further in 2008 he is now falling short and mentally folding under pressure often.

sh@de
04-16-2009, 01:04 AM
an incomplete game

Pray tell me, which part of his game is incomplete?

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 01:10 AM
You can if the competition sucks. The field from 1999-2006 (except for Agassi and Sampras for some parts of 1999) was overall the worst in mens tennis history and Federer took full advantage. 2001-2003 was even worse than 2004-2006 and such limited talents as Hewitt and Roddick took even bigger advantage of that. Bottom line though Federer is a very talented player with an incomplete game, and a very suspect mental game. Now faced with tougher competition he is still doing quite well but coming up short often vs more worthy opponents, and often folding mentally when it gets to crunch time. His mental game is weak, and would have hurt him alot more if the field was tougher like it is now while he was racking up so many slams.

In 2007 Federer did manage to gut out 3 slams facing improving competition so credit him for that, but since that improving competition improving even further in 2008 he is now falling short and mentally folding under pressure often. And how exactly was the competition weak. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick eta are under-rated just because Fed destroyed them doesn't make them weak.

fps
04-16-2009, 02:49 AM
i believe....

that federer became too complacent, failing to develop his game because his stock rally ball was too much for 99% of the tour. use it or lose it. gradually he has lost the ability to pull out the magic shots when he needs them, because he hasn't been using and honing them in those matches he was always going to win.

this does tie into consistency. he became a little safer from the back of the court, started going for a little less. against the other big 4s this isn't enough. if you're going to miss a few winner attempts it's better to do it in a retrievable match against a lesser player, build up the strokes, than put your hand in the bag in a semi and find it's empty.

P_Agony
04-16-2009, 02:53 AM
And how exactly was the competition weak. Hewitt, Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Roddick eta are under-rated just because Fed destroyed them doesn't make them weak.

Especially when some of them beat Nadal even today at times.

vtmike
04-16-2009, 03:51 AM
Sure u do when the rest of the competition is so far behind talent wise as it was 04-06. Fed didnt need a mental game. His opposition was so frightened of him during that time period, he could just walk on the court and they would accept defeat. They were the mental ones, outside of Nadal. Not Fed. Fed's mental game was tested by Safin (one of if not theee biggest headcase ever) and he outdid Fed at the AO in a tight match in a match of mental toughness.

Oh good God! Will you ever let go of that stupid argument???

The same sh*t in every freakin thread!! :roll:

gj011
04-16-2009, 04:00 AM
Why? The argument is true. The field was weak.

vtmike
04-16-2009, 04:07 AM
Here is my faithful stalker again ^^^ :roll:

Read one of my earlier posts below,

By saying he had a weak playing field, got rigged draws, you are implying that he was a pathetic player who just got "lucky". Ok then I agree that Federer was a pathetic player...but you cannot have it both ways...If Fed was and is a pathetic player then so is Nadal...because all he had to do was beat this pathetic player time after time in GS finals!

Oh and btw what have today's "strong field" i.e. players like Murray and Djokovic done that that is so far ahead in terms of accomplishment as compared to GS winners, multiple GS finalists & former number 1's like Roddick, Hewitt, Agassi (who played his best tennis in his 30's according to him), Nalbandian, Safin, Philippoussis...etc.?

He has also defeated Djokovic twice in grand slams & Murray once...All Murray has done is win Masters 1000 tournaments and all of a sudden he is one of the best in history? Djokovic has won only one slam, has a hundred physical conditioning problems, who breaks down in 80 F temperatures after playing two sets, and finally Federer who is pathetic player according to you........So you are trying to say these players are the strongest competition for a ranked 1 player and comprise of what you call a "strong playing field"? :confused:

So using your logic Nadal is a lucky & pathetic player....which makes Djokovic completely worthless since he could not beat such pathetic players!

icedevil0289
04-16-2009, 04:10 AM
imo, I don't think the competition is that much better now.

yellowoctopus
04-16-2009, 05:34 AM
I truly believe that Federer is working to tweak this game. One has to realize that his style of play is quite complex, one can easily make a case that it is more complex than any players today (think about the offensive and defensive moves he has). This complexity means that it is not that easy for us to see a drastic change right away.

Additionally, Federer's approach to dealing with the cycle of ups and downs (in and out of 'the zone') within a match has always been to lay low during the down part of the cycle and just hang in there--making small adjustments here and there but doesn't try to make spectacular shots. Despite what others might say, I believe we are all creatures of habits; Federer is most likely reacting to this down time the same way he deal with it in a match.

Andyk028
04-16-2009, 05:43 AM
You can if the competition sucks. The field from 1999-2006 (except for Agassi and Sampras for some parts of 1999) was overall the worst in mens tennis history and Federer took full advantage. 2001-2003 was even worse than 2004-2006 and such limited talents as Hewitt and Roddick took even bigger advantage of that. Bottom line though Federer is a very talented player with an incomplete game, and a very suspect mental game. Now faced with tougher competition he is still doing quite well but coming up short often vs more worthy opponents, and often folding mentally when it gets to crunch time. His mental game is weak, and would have hurt him alot more if the field was tougher like it is now while he was racking up so many slams.

In 2007 Federer did manage to gut out 3 slams facing improving competition so credit him for that, but since that improving competition improving even further in 2008 he is now falling short and mentally folding under pressure often.

I'm guessing the reason your forum name is selesgraffan is because you have no idea what youre talking about in regards to men's tennis.

coloskier
04-16-2009, 08:35 AM
Fed has a baby on the way, recently married, found a field that caught him, etc. He is probably dealing with more than any of us can imagine--let alone play professional tennis on a daily basis with all of these other things going on in his life.

He was the best. The field caught and surpassed him. Time will tell if he has another gear or not.

I personally don't believe he does at this point in time.

Actually, I don't think the field caught up to him. I think his game lowered back down to the rest of the field.

TheProdigalDre
04-16-2009, 08:37 AM
If by "consistent" you mean "stubborn," then yes, it is hurting him. The notion that Federer has an "incomplete" game is ridiculous. The notion that he is getting older and is failing to evolve his game is perhaps valid.

I think Fed would (or would have) benefit(ed) from a consistent coach - one that he respects and is willing to listen to, one that can critique his strokes finding little things that none of us or Fed himself can see, and primarily, one that could scout for him. Granted, he has done pretty ok (sarcasm) without one until now.

One of the reasons I admire Nadal so much is that at 22 he is scarily getting better and better and wants to get keep getting better. Fedex on the other hand just wanted to continue kicking everyone's @ss for all eternity and does not quite understand why he is not right now.

This is all to say, the fear factor Fed has enjoyed (save for the top guys) is not there and the field is figuring him out (save for Nadal who owns him).

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 11:57 AM
04-06 was much weaker. Who on top during that time period is better than Nadal, Murray, Djoker today? Who? Anyone care to rattle off some names? Safin? LOL.. Sure when he showed up to play tennis once every 5 years. Good for him. Nalbandian? Gimme a break. Davy? Please. Roddick? Not nearly as good as Nadal, Murray, Djoker overrall. Hewitt? He fizzeled out very fast due to injuries and even at his peak I dont think Hewitt was better than these guys

egn
04-16-2009, 12:11 PM
Sure u do when the rest of the competition is so far behind talent wise as it was 04-06. Fed didnt need a mental game. His opposition was so frightened of him during that time period, he could just walk on the court and they would accept defeat. They were the mental ones, outside of Nadal. Not Fed. Fed's mental game was tested by Safin (one of if not theee biggest headcase ever) and he outdid Fed at the AO in a tight match in a match of mental toughness.

In order of his prime years competition wise go as follow

2005
2007
2004
2006

2007 the field was probably at his best, Roddick resurged, DJokovic rose, Nadal was right there knocking on Feds door. 2005 comes next because Nadal hit the scene and no offense 2005 Nadal like any great tennager when he hits his streak was a damn bit of trouble for everyone. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby all had great years also and were posing a strong threat. That is why I think it was tougher than 2007, not by much though. Those 2 years had what I feel to be at least good competition. Fed was not winning his slams in cakewalks, Fed had to work for his slams and he caught a break that Andre hit his last hot streak in 2005, but than as Safin and Hewitt learned Andre like Sampras old when he hits a streak he crushes. 2004 was iffy, it was good and it was bad. Safin like in 2005 was streaky but Safin was not playing as strong exception for indoor season. Roddick was strong, but Hewitt was not around. Nalby was shaky. The clay court field was good but not great as Ferrero had been lost and Coria was a notorious choker. Yet 2004 was decent. 2006 well yea that field sucked.

I also see where Game is coming from. Fed was rarely challenged..how many 5 set slam finals did Fed win? That number is 1. Fed's era was not talentless as many claim, but Fed was so far ahead of it. Which is what I feel is the case with most greats who have sheer domination. Like Borg from 78-80 was way above his competition. Lendl in his three best years the same thing, though Lendl's mental game case can be made was even worse than Feds. Fed is a great player and he still is very talented..I don't doubt that he can't beat Djokovic, Murray or Nadal in talent aspects but he mentally right now is awful. He has lost the match in his head when he steps on the court against Nadal or Murray, you can almost see it. He played two out right dominating matches against Del Potro and Roddick while Nadal struggled to finish off Verdasco. Yet he could not put a nail in the coffin against Nadal, because in his head there is something wrong.

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 01:55 PM
I guess you can argue between 05 and 07. Even 35 year old Agassi managed top 10 status in 05 and played 3 straight 5 setters at the open and still had enough in the tank to take a set off Fed.


2008 though things definitely to pick up competively. Much more than it was 04-07 most definitely. In fact I think 2008 and 2009 so far has been the strongest competitively since the 90s. 00-07 just wasnt anything special IMO in terms of deep competition after Sampras and Agassi were just about finishing up. At least their top level. Other than Fed and Nadal those years didnt really produce what I would call great players. But many good players.

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 02:00 PM
In order of his prime years competition wise go as follow

2005
2007
2004
2006

2007 the field was probably at his best, Roddick resurged, DJokovic rose, Nadal was right there knocking on Feds door. 2005 comes next because Nadal hit the scene and no offense 2005 Nadal like any great tennager when he hits his streak was a damn bit of trouble for everyone. Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Nalby all had great years also and were posing a strong threat. That is why I think it was tougher than 2007, not by much though. Those 2 years had what I feel to be at least good competition. Fed was not winning his slams in cakewalks, Fed had to work for his slams and he caught a break that Andre hit his last hot streak in 2005, but than as Safin and Hewitt learned Andre like Sampras old when he hits a streak he crushes. 2004 was iffy, it was good and it was bad. Safin like in 2005 was streaky but Safin was not playing as strong exception for indoor season. Roddick was strong, but Hewitt was not around. Nalby was shaky. The clay court field was good but not great as Ferrero had been lost and Coria was a notorious choker. Yet 2004 was decent. 2006 well yea that field sucked.

I also see where Game is coming from. Fed was rarely challenged..how many 5 set slam finals did Fed win? That number is 1. Fed's era was not talentless as many claim, but Fed was so far ahead of it. Which is what I feel is the case with most greats who have sheer domination. Like Borg from 78-80 was way above his competition. Lendl in his three best years the same thing, though Lendl's mental game case can be made was even worse than Feds. Fed is a great player and he still is very talented..I don't doubt that he can't beat Djokovic, Murray or Nadal in talent aspects but he mentally right now is awful. He has lost the match in his head when he steps on the court against Nadal or Murray, you can almost see it. He played two out right dominating matches against Del Potro and Roddick while Nadal struggled to finish off Verdasco. Yet he could not put a nail in the coffin against Nadal, because in his head there is something wrong.


Great post! And you point something very glaring. How many matches at the slams did Fed really have to tough out during his years of dominance? How many players truly challenged him. Fed wasnt just beating the competition. He was SPANKING the competition. His mental toughness and clutch performances were not really needed during this time period for the most part unless it was against Nadal. He certainly wasnt involved in too many classic, one for the age, matches during this period. Very very few. He was just steamrolling players with ease

Cesc Fabregas
04-16-2009, 02:10 PM
I don't completley buy the week field argument because Murray and Djokovic have not proven themselves to be better than say Safin and Hewitt.

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 02:13 PM
I don't completley buy the week field argument because Murray and Djokovic have not proven themselves to be better than say Safin and Hewitt.


Well Murray will eventually at the slams. No doubt at it. Both he and Djokovic are already proving to be much more consistent than Safin ever was. Maybe Safin has more raw talent but you wont see Murray or Djoker just completely fall off the radar for years at a time like Safin. Both are far more consistent. Safin should have been Roger's rival during that time period. But it never came to fruition


Hewitt's slams came at a very opportune time when the slams were anyones for the taking 01-03. Pete and Andre were almost done and Fed had yet to really hit it big. He didnt win any and couldnt even beat Fed once Fed reached his prime. Plus Hewitt's injuries ended his career pretty quick. At least the "winning part" of his career.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-16-2009, 05:24 PM
Why? The argument is true. The field was weak.


Djokovic vs Roddick 2-3
Nadal vs Nalbandian 1-2 (Should really have been 0-3)
Murray vs Davydenko 3-4
Murray vs Nalbandian 0-2
Nadal vs Hewitt 4-4
Murray vs Safin 0-1
Djokovic vs Safin 0-2

Remember aswell that most of these players have been played in Nadal, Murray and Djokovics prime or near-prime while the other players have been in decline so it doesn't look to good for your argument that this era is stronger then the last one.

Bassus
04-16-2009, 05:27 PM
Questioning the field Federer dominated from 2004-2007 is legitimate in judging Federer's place in history, but there is no clear-cut way to judge such things. With no Federer around, then players like Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin would likely have more grandslams, and thus be considered greater players. Even Agassi may have won a few more if not for Federer.

To say that Federer's resume is inflated due to poor competition is to also question the lion-heated Nadal. As someone else already pointed out, if Federer is just a chump who feasted on lesser chumps, then what is Nadal? Afterall, all but one of Nadal's 6 grandslams came against the chump Federer, and all six of them went through him.


The mental aspect is very interesting to me. I think Federer has been a mentally strong player against everyone except Nadal. Nadal has broken him in every way as a player. There is no denying that now. This year's AO final is all the proof one needs. Federer should have won that match, but Nadal had nerves of steel, while Federer folded. Now I see no reason to hope that Federer will ever beat Nadal again in a big match. The way Nadal handled Federer crying at the end of the AO final was very classy on his part and I think it was genuine on Nadal's part. But, I can't help but wonder if Nadal were thinking to himself that he has completely destroyed the one who on the verge of being the GOAT, and that he now has nothing whatsoever to fear from Federer.

Of course, now the chances of Federer making it through to face Nadal seem dimmer. But I don't think the losses to Murray and Nadal are necessarily mental. It may just be that Federer is getting older. He is past his prime as a tennis player, while the other three in the top four are just now entering theirs. Federer of 05-07 was better than the Federer now, and that Federer dominated everyone except Nadal. To say that Federer got the best of people like Djokovic before the Djokovices came into their own is a fair point, but one must be fair to Federer now. If Murray continues to dominate Federer, and if Djokovic begins to, then they are doing so against a past-his-prime Federer. That's just the way it is with players who are 4-5 yrs apart in age; their primes will not overlap.

GameSampras
04-16-2009, 05:30 PM
Obviously there was no tennis boards around back in 1998.(that I know of) But were people talking about Pete declining back in 1998 when he was 27 years of age? I dont remember one thing being mentioned among the tennis community of ever a "decline" during Pete's down year that happened in 98 where he only won wimbeldon that year. Both Fed and Pete began their domination at the same age just 10 years apart

mikethehamster
04-16-2009, 05:37 PM
Djokovic vs Roddick 2-3
Nadal vs Nalbandian 1-2 (Should really have been 0-3)
Murray vs Davydenko 3-4
Murray vs Nalbandian 0-2
Nadal vs Hewitt 4-4
Murray vs Safin 0-1
Djokovic vs Safin 0-2

Remember aswell that most of these players have been played in Nadal, Murray and Djokovics prime or near-prime while the other players have been in decline so it doesn't look to good for your argument that this era is stronger then the last one.

+1000000000000000

Bassus
04-16-2009, 05:39 PM
Obviously there was no tennis boards around back in 1998.(that I know of) But were people talking about Pete declining back in 1998 when he was 27 years of age? I dont remember one thing being mentioned among the tennis community of ever a "decline" during Pete's down year that happened in 98 where he only won wimbeldon that year. Both Fed and Pete began their domination at the same age just 10 years apart


But in hindsight it was clearly the case. Sampras' last year as the dominant, unquestionably-best player was in 1997 when he won the AO and Wimbledon.

egn
04-16-2009, 05:43 PM
Great post! And you point something very glaring. How many matches at the slams did Fed really have to tough out during his years of dominance? How many players truly challenged him. Fed wasnt just beating the competition. He was SPANKING the competition. His mental toughness and clutch performances were not really needed during this time period for the most part unless it was against Nadal. He certainly wasnt involved in too many classic, one for the age, matches during this period. Very very few. He was just steamrolling players with ease

Yep one of the many reasons talent can at points outweighed mental skills, he never sweated because he was so far ahead. Now he sweats because he has lost some of his skills and not sure about Djoker or Murray yet but Nadal gets better each and each year since 2005 and Fed is nervous.

Bassus
04-16-2009, 05:52 PM
Yep one of the many reasons talent can at points outweighed mental skills, he never sweated because he was so far ahead. Now he sweats because he has lost some of his skills and not sure about Djoker or Murray yet but Nadal gets better each and each year since 2005 and Fed is nervous.

Nadal has been in Federer's head from the beginning, and he achieved mental supremacy over Federer in last year's clay court season when he twice came back from huge deficits in Monte Carlo and Hamburg. Since then, it has been all Nadal. So yeah, Federer is definitely nervous and uncertain when he plays Nadal.

But Federer is also getting older. Federer of 27 and on will not be as good as the Federer of 24-26.

Morrissey
04-16-2009, 06:35 PM
After reading the whole thread I think fps and Bassus were most accurate.

Hot Sauce
04-16-2009, 06:42 PM
Yes. He's consistently been playing a low level, and that definitely hurts him.

AprilFool
04-17-2009, 04:46 AM
Actually, I don't think the field caught up to him. I think his game lowered back down to the rest of the field.

Interesting thought...

msc886
04-17-2009, 03:10 PM
Why? The argument is true. The field was weak.

The argument is perspective. You think the field was weak.

GameSampras
04-17-2009, 03:15 PM
I still would like someone to tell me that who during the 04-06 era is on Murray, Djoker's, Nadal level.

msc886
04-17-2009, 03:40 PM
I still would like someone to tell me that who during the 04-06 era is on Murray, Djoker's, Nadal level.

Well nodody is better than Nadal on clay. However on other surfaces, a prime Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Davydenko could match them.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-17-2009, 04:09 PM
I still would like someone to tell me that who during the 04-06 era is on Murray, Djoker's, Nadal level. Look at these stats I provided before:


Djokovic vs Roddick 2-3
Nadal vs Nalbandian 1-2 (Should really have been 0-3)
Murray vs Davydenko 3-4
Murray vs Nalbandian 0-2
Nadal vs Hewitt 4-4
Murray vs Safin 0-1
Djokovic vs Safin 0-2

Now most of these matches were played in Djokovics,Murrays and Nadals prime so they can still match these players.

P_Agony
04-17-2009, 04:14 PM
I still would like someone to tell me that who during the 04-06 era is on Murray, Djoker's, Nadal level.

Nadal was in 04-06, and he was already in his prime as far as clay goes, IMO.
Safin, Nalbandian, Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick are all as good (or more) as Murray and Djokovic.

Fact: Roddick has a 2-0 winning streak over Djokovic this year.
Fact: Aside of their recent, very close clay match, Davydenko has won the previous two meetings with Murray, including spanking him in the recent Masters Cup.
Fact: Safin, at the end of his career, and on his worst surface, has defeated Djokovic on his way to the Wimbeldon 08 semi final.
Fact: Safin has a winning record over Murray
Fact: Nalbandian has a winning record over Nadal (which should be 3-0 by now, but the headcase was just doing his job as being just that)
Fact: Davydenko has defeated Nadal twice in 2008.
Fact: Hewitt has a tied H2H with Nadal - 4 all.

Nearly all the facts I mentioned had those results in 2007-09, where they have been passed their primes and the younger players were entering theirs.

montx
04-23-2009, 09:25 PM
the pressure to be perfect in anything can overwhelm us all. fact is there is always someone better than you on a given day and there is always that day. all i know is i just give the atheletes kudos for performing their best everyday.

Also, carrying the grace they do carry in their wins in their losses teaches us about their thresholds, their humanness and their limitations.

In the end, i believe everyone has tried their best and we have been truly blessed to watch their battles on the feild.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 05:35 AM
OK let's debunk all this nonsense.
Djokovic-Roddick would be tight, probably 50/50. A 2-0 streak? In AO Djoko retired because of health problems, a victory due to a retirement isn't that convincing especially after losing the first set.
Davydenko does NOT have a winning record against Murray, he lost their last encounter in straight sets and lost 3 matches in a row to Murray in 2007-8. Actually Davydenko does NOT have a winning record vs any of the young top 3 (Nadal, Murray, Djoko) despite playing some of his best tennis in 2008.
One freak win by Safin over Djoko (actually Safin also beat 17 year old Djoko at the AO, how relevant is that?) doesn't make him the player of the century. Djokovic is the youngest player to have played the 4 slam semis and he is way more consistent than Safin has ever been. Safin has won 15 titles overall and he's 29. At 21 Djoko has already won 12. Safin has played Murray only once when Murray was 18, nothing one could draw conclusions from and even though Murray was a teenager he took a set 6-1 in that encounter. Nalbandian won his 2 matches vs Nadal in 2 indoor tournaments within the same month, he was never good enough to meet Nadal on other surfaces, so difficult to extrapolate and in their latest encounter not only did he lose but he got served a bagel, so no it's not even close to be 3-0 whatever excuses you want to use and if you want to play the excuse game then it's 2-2 because Nalby would have lost today on clay against Nadal.
As I said before, Nadal has a winning record against Davy, so that's already out of the way.
3 of the 4 matches Hewitt won against Nadal happened when Nadal was 17 and 18. Since AO 2005, it's been 4-1 Nadal. Hewitt is 0-1 and 1-3 vs Murray and Djokovic.
Now if you throw Federer in the mix you'll see that Federer literally crushed Roddick and Davy, struggled more with Nalby (lost 8 matches to him) but still edged out the head to head. By contrast he has lopsided losing head to heads vs Nadal and Murray and even though he has a winning head to head vs Djokovic, he lost a slam to him and at his very young age (only 21), Novak has already beaten Fed more than Safin has. If we forget about the head to head, both Hewitt and Safin had 2 or 1 great years on the tour and then withered away, not the most formidable opponents as far as consistency goes. (answer to P Agony)

P_Agony
04-24-2009, 06:14 AM
OK let's debunk all this nonsense.
Djokovic-Roddick would be tight, probably 50/50. A 2-0 streak? In AO Djoko retired because of health problems, a victory due to a retirement isn't that convincing especially after losing the first set.
Davydenko does NOT have a winning record against Murray, he lost their last encounter in straight sets and lost 3 matches in a row to Murray in 2007-8. Actually Davydenko does NOT have a winning record vs any of the young top 3 (Nadal, Murray, Djoko) despite playing some of his best tennis in 2008.
One freak win by Safin over Djoko (actually Safin also beat 17 year old Djoko at the AO, how relevant is that?) doesn't make him the player of the century. Djokovic is the youngest player to have played the 4 slam semis and he is way more consistent than Safin has ever been. Safin has won 15 titles overall and he's 29. At 21 Djoko has already won 12. Safin has played Murray only once when Murray was 18, nothing one could draw conclusions from and even though Murray was a teenager he took a set 6-1 in that encounter. Nalbandian won his 2 matches vs Nadal in 2 indoor tournaments within the same month, he was never good enough to meet Nadal on other surfaces, so difficult to extrapolate and in their latest encounter not only did he lose but he got served a bagel, so no it's not even close to be 3-0 whatever excuses you want to use and if you want to play the excuse game then it's 2-2 because Nalby would have lost today on clay against Nadal.
As I said before, Nadal has a winning record against Davy, so that's already out of the way.
3 of the 4 matches Hewitt won against Nadal happened when Nadal was 17 and 18. Since AO 2005, it's been 4-1 Nadal. Hewitt is 0-1 and 1-3 vs Murray and Djokovic.
Now if you throw Federer in the mix you'll see that Federer literally crushed Roddick and Davy, struggled more with Nalby (lost 8 matches to him) but still edged out the head to head. By contrast he has lopsided losing head to heads vs Nadal and Murray and even though he has a winning head to head vs Djokovic, he lost a slam to him and at his very young age (only 21), Novak has already beaten Fed more than Safin has. If we forget about the head to head, both Hewitt and Safin had 2 or 1 great years on the tour and then withered away, not the most formidable opponents as far as consistency goes. (answer to P Agony)

Davy actually defeated Murray in the latest TMC. Due to Murray's recent clay win their H2H is now even (until that match Davy HAD a winning record). Davy also has 2 wins against Nadal in 2008. Not too shabby.
Discrediting Safin's win over Djoko (one freak win? Please...) just makes your post worse. I mean, if it was one freak win (plus another freak win in AO when Joker was super young) than please let's count all of the wins in tennis as "freak wins". Yawn.

Nalbadian was being served a bagel when he was completley off his game after losing 5 match points. I can't believe you could not see it. But anyway, a 2-1 record is still a winning record. Sorry but you fail here too.

Novak has beaten Federer more times than Safin has. Yes, but which Federer did he beat. The only victory Novak had over a good version of Federer was in Canada 2007 (and it was a tight match). If you think Federer played his best in AO08 or in Miami 09, you are in denial. Federer playing like in 04-06 Novak wouldn't stand a chance against. Novakl is actually a good matchup IMO for Federer.

So my point stands. Safin, Nalby, Hewitt, Roddick, Davy > Murray, Joker, Tonga, Simon, Del Potro.

So think twice before you post nonsesne and than calling someone else's post nonesense, troll.

BTW, you started the attacking. You could easily posted the same thing without the "nonesense" comment and we could have had a nice disccussion, but since you can't, don't blame me for fighting back.

veroniquem
04-24-2009, 07:22 AM
[QUOTE=P_Agony;3351735]Davy actually defeated Murray in the latest TMC. Due to Murray's recent clay win their H2H is now even (until that match Davy HAD a winning record). Davy also has 2 wins against Nadal in 2008. Not too shabby.
Discrediting Safin's win over Djoko (one freak win? Please...) just makes your post worse. I mean, if it was one freak win (plus another freak win in AO when Joker was super young) than please let's count all of the wins in tennis as "freak wins". Yawn

And why would Murray's last win not count? They're even in the head to head and Murray is a better player than Davy by a lanslide. At 21 Murray has won 3 masters and been in a slam final. At almost 28 Davy has never made a slam final and won only 2 masters, he doesn't have a winning record vs any top player and is 1-5 against Roddick. Djokovic has 1 slam to his name, 1 slam final, 4 master shields and 1 master cup and he's also only 21. Djokovic's talent is so far above Davy's, it's not even funny. Nalbandian is a little better with 1 slam final and 1 master cup, still only 2 master shields at the age of 27 but still way below Djokovic for consistency and achievements.
The 1 with equal talent was Safin but his consistency was disastrous.
Sorry but your point doesn't hold, it fails miserably.

mandy01
04-24-2009, 07:27 AM
I'm waiting for the day when ***********s would stop going on about 'weak era' rubbish like broken records...like we havent heard this a thousand and more times already :roll:

P_Agony
04-24-2009, 07:33 AM
I'm waiting for the day when ***********s would stop going on about 'weak era' rubbish like broken records...like we havent heard this a thousand and more times already :roll:

Don't worry, when Nadal wins every slam and Murray ends up slamless they will say Nadal had a weak era, with a weak mentally Djokovic, an overrated Murray, and a burnt out Federer.

tennis_hand
04-24-2009, 07:52 AM
Fed has made it to the semis at least at every tournament this year..but there is one problem.

Doha - lost to Murray
AO- lost to Nadal
IW- lost to Murray
Miami - lost to Djokovic

Is it possible that although he is being consistently good he is only hurting himself more as he is racking up losses against his rivals due to his stubbornness and unwillingness to change his game? Opinions.


This just proves that his game now has declined to be No. 4.
In time like 2005, he would never have lost to these players. His power was just too big for any of them to control. Now, that mind blowing power is no where in his game.

devila
04-24-2009, 11:56 PM
Well Murray will eventually at the slams. No doubt at it. Both he and Djokovic are already proving to be much more consistent than Safin ever was. Maybe Safin has more raw talent but you wont see Murray or Djoker just completely fall off the radar for years at a time like Safin. Both are far more consistent. Safin should have been Roger's rival during that time period. But it never came to fruition

Hewitt's slams came at a very opportune time when the slams were anyones for the taking 01-03. Pete and Andre were almost done and Fed had yet to really hit it big. He didnt win any and couldnt even beat Fed once Fed reached his prime. Plus Hewitt's injuries ended his career pretty quick. At least the "winning part" of his career.Safin won a match when Federer stupidly wasted 5 match points in the 4th set. Safin only beat Federer twice on hardcourts (one of Federer's fave surfaces) between 2000-2009, and only challenged Roddick when Roddick choked in 2004. . . and spiralled out of control while serving for a set and choked against Tursunov on clay in 2006. again after 2006. Safin dominated Djokovic on grass, though. It's still not a rival situation. He never put Federer in a losing situation on both grass and hardcourt (Roddick did, even though Roddick didn't plan to seriously play professionally. And he never had Safin's good coaching and clay/grass experience).

Hewitt got a walkover when Roddick quit the French Open match. He was handed a get out of jail card after the umpire overrule against Roddick in the US Open. Hewitt said racist stuff about the umpire and Blake.
2002's Wimbledon was a circus...no one in the top 10 made it through.

devila
04-25-2009, 12:30 AM
Well nodody is better than Nadal on clay. However on other surfaces, a prime Nalbandian, Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Davydenko could match them.
Who knows what can happen on clay against Nadal? Federer and Djokovic are too limited vs. Nadal. Murray was lucky after Roddick's weakened endurance level in Indian Wells (retirement), San Jose (played Davis Cup, then rushed to SJ and choked while serving for the set) and pitiful out-of- control state in Masters Cup. Safin and Hewitt are gone on hardcourt against Nadal. Davydenko can only win one set next time he plays Nadal.
Nikolay was lucky last year when Roddick was dead on arrival after partying for his private life and painful wins like a moron.