PDA

View Full Version : I am convinced, Davydenko to win US Open


Breaker
08-11-2009, 09:01 PM
Yesterday I was sat on a boulder meditating when something came to me, a vision more than likely.

Think with me a second.

Forehand like a rocket
One of the top 5 backhands in the world.
Great serve
Some of the best speed and footwork on the tour
Good transition game behind his groundstrokes.

All of the tools are there, now some may be thinking "LOL! He always chokes against Federer how is this clown going to win a slam?!?!?!". Let's take a closer look at his competition.

Fed: Too busy changing diapers and staying up late reading bedtime stories to get proper preparation, according to a thread here even a video game character made by SEGA (lmaolmaoroflroflLOLSEGA) could beat Federer -- the ultimate insult, also regardless of his last two slam wins he is not at the same level he once was, Davydenko will be fresh and at a high level.

Nadal: Knees, his worst slam, Davydenko doesn't mind playing him on hard court anyway.

Murray: Need we remember the demolition at TMC last year??

Djokovic: According to this board he is done, and his slice backhand is like rice or something so he's irrelevant.

Roddick: Difficult due to the serve, but Davydenko is on another level in terms or footwork/groundies so advantage Davy-D

Del Potro: Most difficult for him -- considering his last two defeats at slams were to big guys who hit huge from both sides along with having big serves. Potential finals material here I think.

The only two guys who own Davydenko are Hewitt and Federer (both have never lost to him and have many wins over him. Federer's has no chance but it depends for Hewitt how well his hip holds up -- on a hard court it wears on him more so long matches favour Davydenko.

Someone out there may be thinking, "LMAO! This guy just got destroyed at two slams by one tournament wonder Soderling and choker mental midget Berdych how could he beat any decent player"

Because he ****ing awesome, that's why. You lose, I win.

Davydenko will win US Open.

[

hankash
08-11-2009, 09:02 PM
hmm willing to place bets?

JeMar
08-11-2009, 09:03 PM
I agree that he will win.


The mob owes him a favor.

Serve_Ace
08-11-2009, 09:03 PM
What, I don't get it

CountryHillbilly
08-11-2009, 09:04 PM
Davydenko is past his prime, cannot beat anyone from Top 4 and should retire.

theroleoftheunderdog
08-11-2009, 09:06 PM
everyone would like to play like davydenko

bolo
08-11-2009, 09:06 PM
Average serve and poor transition game. His body seems to be breaking down as well, he's had his chances to win slams but has failed. Never really cared for his game, but wouldn't have bothered me if he had won a slam. I think his time has past.

slicekick95
08-11-2009, 09:18 PM
Yesterday I was sat on a boulder meditating when something came to me, a vision more than likely.

Think with me a second.

Forehand like a rocket
One of the top 5 backhands in the world.
Great serve
Some of the best speed and footwork on the tour
Good transition game behind his groundstrokes.

All of the tools are there, now some may be thinking "LOL! He always chokes against Federer how is this clown going to win a slam?!?!?!". Let's take a closer look at his competition.

Fed: Too busy changing diapers and staying up late reading bedtime stories to get proper preparation, according to a thread here even a video game character made by SEGA (lmaolmaoroflroflLOLSEGA) could beat Federer -- the ultimate insult, also regardless of his last two slam wins he is not at the same level he once was, Davydenko will be fresh and at a high level.

Nadal: Knees, his worst slam, Davydenko doesn't mind playing him on hard court anyway.

Murray: Need we remember the demolition at TMC last year??

Djokovic: According to this board he is done, and his slice backhand is like rice or something so he's irrelevant.

Roddick: Difficult due to the serve, but Davydenko is on another level in terms or footwork/groundies so advantage Davy-D

Del Potro: Most difficult for him -- considering his last two defeats at slams were to big guys who hit huge from both sides along with having big serves. Potential finals material here I think.

The only two guys who own Davydenko are Hewitt and Federer (both have never lost to him and have many wins over him. Federer's has no chance but it depends for Hewitt how well his hip holds up -- on a hard court it wears on him more so long matches favour Davydenko.

Someone out there may be thinking, "LMAO! This guy just got destroyed at two slams by one tournament wonder Soderling and choker mental midget Berdych how could he beat any decent player"

Because he ****ing awesome, that's why. You lose, I win.

Davydenko will win US Open.

[

LOL, I have no idea why but I laughed so hard at this.

Carsomyr
08-11-2009, 09:21 PM
Makes sense to me.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:27 PM
Average serve and poor transition game. His body seems to be breaking down as well, he's had his chances to win slams but has failed. Never really cared for his game, but wouldn't have bothered me if he had won a slam. I think his time has past.



I think Davydenko's serve is anything but average.

SourStraws
08-11-2009, 09:29 PM
What about JMDP, Tsonga or anybody else like that...

S.S.

Carsomyr
08-11-2009, 09:32 PM
What about JMDP, Tsonga or anybody else like that...

S.S.

I think the analysis pretty thoroughly and accurately rated Davydenko's chances against those guys.

If it's Davydenko vs. the field - I'm taking Davydenko.

Wolland
08-11-2009, 09:36 PM
Davydenko is so unpredictable, he can lose to anyone. I just can't see him win 7 consecutive matches in a grand slam.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:39 PM
Davydenko? Win a slam? Much less a hardcourt slam? Keep dreaming..

Ive never seen such a bunch of people put so much stock in a bunch of LOSERS like Roddick and Davy.


I mean sure.. Lightning can strike ( see Roddicks USO win in 03 which was even questionable in itself) .. But if it hasnt already, doubtful it will twice at least

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:41 PM
Davydenko? Win a slam? Much less a hardcourt slam? Keep dreaming..

Ive never seen such a bunch of people put so much stock in a bunch of LOSERS like Roddick and Davy.


I mean sure.. Lightning can strike ( see Roddicks USO win in 03 which was even questionable in itself) .. But if it hasnt already, doubtful it will twice at least



There's a bigger chance of Davydenko winning a slam than Pete winning one (you know.. 0%) currently.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:42 PM
There's a bigger chance of Davydenko winning a slam than Pete winning one (you know.. 0%) currently.

At this point.. I would probably give even 38 year old Pete a better chance than Davystinko.

dropserve
08-11-2009, 09:44 PM
Davydenko for president!

JeMar
08-11-2009, 09:45 PM
At this point.. I would probably give even 38 year old Pete a better chance than Davystinko.

Laughable.

Davydenko at least stands a decent chance of making it to the second week.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:46 PM
Laughable.

Davydenko at least stands a decent chance of making it to the second week.



Yea youre right.. Davydenko is a funny joke. Another one of Roger's "awesome contemporaries":-|

JeMar
08-11-2009, 09:47 PM
Yea youre right.. Davydenko is a funny joke. Another one of Roger's "awesome contemporaries":-|

I realize he's no Galo Blanco, but he's done well for himself.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:48 PM
Well, I realize he's no Galo Blanco.



Or Fabrice Santoro.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 09:48 PM
Davydenko is a glorified journeyman who just happens to hang around the top 5 or 6 somehow in this weak era. It is depressing to see guys like that year after year stay that high up. I mean 1 or 2 years would be fine, but maybe a 5th year he will get back up that high again after an injury layoff no less. Ugh. I miss when there were guys like Stich, Krajicek, Chang, and Ivanisevic there who atleast had the talent and ability to upset the top dogs, and had that little fighting chance. Sure they were unlikely and big underdogs if they went up against top form Sampras, Agassi, Becker, or Edberg. However you knew they had a little chance, they had the potential win take out any of the greats and even maybe win a slam on a given day, there was some threat and anticipation of what might happen. Now we have guys like Davydenko and Blake who you know will not, cannot, and never will do this.

Will he ever win a slam, NO, NO, no, no, no, NO, no. He has nothing that can take him to a slam title. Federer and Nadal probably laugh at the sheer thought of ever losing to him in a slam final or semi, if he makes it vs one of them they essentialy look at it as a walkover I am willing to bet.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:49 PM
Davydenko is a glorified journeyman who just happens to hang around the top 5 or 6 somehow in this weak era. It is depressing to see guys like that year after year stay that high up. I mean 1 or 2 years would be fine, but maybe a 5th year he will get back up that high again after an injury layoff no less. Ugh.

Will he ever win a slam, NO, NO, no, no, no, NO, no. He has nothing that can take him to a slam title. Federer and Nadal probably laugh at the sheer thought of ever losing to him in a slam final or semi, if he makes it vs one of them they essentialy look at it as a walkover I am willing to bet.


Davydenko should have beaten Federer in that FO SF where he utterly choked in all 3 sets. I disagree with you slightly; Davydenko is alot better than people give him credit for. I think he's a little bit more than a "glorified journeyman". That title belongs to Ivan Ljubicic.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 09:50 PM
At this point.. I would probably give even 38 year old Pete a better chance than Davystinko.

Ohh ho ho, good one! How long'd it take you to think that one up? Like a year? :lol:

I will say this much. Davy has done something in the past 2 years which even Fed and Roddick have failed to do - win a MS event on HC.

Davy's still a top 10 HC player, which gives him SOME chance, even if it's 1%, to win the USO.

He's shown good form this summer, granted on clay, but if he can hold up physically, he could definetly be a dangerous floater and tough QF or Rof16 opponent for the likes of Roddick, DelPo, Verdasco, Tsonga. Too early to tell now tho.

And no, Pete if he came back would go out in the 1st round to the Frederic Neimeyers of the world lol. Be lucky to win a set, let alone a match.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 09:51 PM
Davydenko is a glorified journeyman who just happens to hang around the top 5 or 6 somehow in this weak era. It is depressing to see guys like that year after year stay that high up. I mean 1 or 2 years would be fine, but maybe a 5th year he will get back up that high again after an injury layoff no less. Ugh.

Will he ever win a slam, NO, NO, no, no, no, NO, no. He has nothing that can take him to a slam title. Federer and Nadal probably laugh at the sheer thought of ever losing to him in a slam final or semi, if he makes it vs one of them they essentialy look at it as a walkover I am willing to bet.

Absolutely... I think if people take off their rosey tinted Fed glasses, its glaringly obvious. He cant overpower his opponents, he has no weapons to speak of. Hes like a brokeback version of Hewitt circa 01-04.. And thats probably being too generous.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 09:51 PM
Davydenko should have beaten Federer in that FO SF where he utterly choked in all 3 sets. I disagree with you slightly; Davydenko is alot better than people give him credit for. I think he's a little bit more than a "glorified journeyman". That title belongs to Ivan Ljubicic.

Yeah you might be right but think about what you are saying all the same. A match he should have won, yet still managed to lose in THREE sets. He cant even get a single set in a match he has control of and should have won. What kind of a joke is that. That pretty much is the definition of a pretender, rather than a contender.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 09:55 PM
It is depressing to see guys like that year after year stay that high up.

You need to stay on your meds then, if another man's success makes you so depressed. Get off the ledge! Don't jump!

As far as the rest of your post goes, I tell you guys time and time again, if watching today's tennis makes you so sad, nothing's stopping you from watching the S&V borefests of the 90s. Go, there's VHS, DVD's, youtube. Plenty of ways to relive the old days, and stop you from b#tchin and moaning in every thread related to today's players.

Seriously though, if Davydenko makes you depressed, you may want to ask your doctor if you have the right dosage.

JeMar
08-11-2009, 09:56 PM
Ohh ho ho, good one! How long'd it take you to think that one up? Like a year? :lol:

I will say this much. Davy has done something in the past 2 years which even Fed and Roddick have failed to do - win a MS event on HC.

Davy's still a top 10 HC player, which gives him SOME chance, even if it's 1%, to win the USO.

He's shown good form this summer, granted on clay, but if he can hold up physically, he could definetly be a dangerous floater and tough QF or Rof16 opponent for the likes of Roddick, DelPo, Verdasco, Tsonga. Too early to tell now tho.

And no, Pete if he came back would go out in the 1st round to the Frederic Neimeyers of the world lol. Be lucky to win a set, let alone a match.

Somewhere, in some town, on some kitchen table, sits a paper with the names "Davyjerko," "Davygayko," "Davygecko," and and several other failed attempts struck through with a line. At the bottom of the page, underneath a coffee stain and little pink hearts, you will find the scribbled word, "Davystinko," circled with a periwinkle highlighter.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 09:57 PM
What is wrong with longtime tennis fans being sorely dissapointed in the state of BOTH the current womens and mens fields. Really both genders in recent years are producing the worst fields in history. Why wouldnt those of us who have been interested and followed the sport a long time be dissapointed in that. You are the only one who seems to think the game is in great shape even with hopeless hacks like Safina, Davydenko, Blake, Jankovic, Ivanovic, occupying such high spots on the totem poll in recent years. Both tours, the womens moreso than the mens, but both to some degree are suffering from their worst TV ratings and revenues in many years. There is serious concern about the future of the sport. Is there anyone who believes the current lack of depth of the fields is not related to that somehow.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 09:58 PM
Yeah you might be right but think about what you are saying all the same. A match he should have won, yet still managed to lose in THREE sets. He cant even get a single set in a match he has control of and should have won. What kind of a joke is that. That pretty much is the definition of a pretender, rather than a contender.



Oh you also forgot the match where he was up a set and a break on Federer at the AO, where he was totally beating on the ball and making Federer look bad. Then he chokes as usual.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 10:00 PM
Oh you also forgot the match where he was up a set and a break on Federer at the AO, where he was totally beating on the ball and making Federer look bad. Then he chokes as usual.

OK fair enough but arent you seeing the problem here. Even those times he plays well enough to win vs someone like Federer in a big match he still cant, in fact he gets 0 sets or if he is lucky he gets 1 set like tis match you refer to. Your own words "he chokes as usual". Doesnt that say it all when there is a perennial top 5 player of this generation?

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 10:04 PM
What is wrong with longtime tennis fans being sorely dissapointed in the state of BOTH the current womens and mens fields. Really both genders in recent years are producing the worst fields in history. Why wouldnt those of us who have been interested and followed the sport a long time be dissapointed in that. You are the only one who seems to think the game is in great shape even with hopeless hacks like Safina, Davydenko, Blake, Jankovic, Ivanovic, occupying such high spots on the totem poll in recent years. Both tours, the womens moreso than the mens, but both to some degree are suffering from their worst TV ratings and revenues in many years. There is serious concern about the future of the sport. Is there anyone who believes the current lack of depth of the fields is not related to that somehow.


Nothing is wrong with it. Its a double standard. Fans of the current era, who think this is the greatest most competitive era since sliced bread, will dog each and every other era trying to make cases to build this one up.. Comments like, "Oh tennis is the most competitive era today," or "Guys today have a greater toll taken on their body than ever before." And they will trash Laver's era or Pete's to no end. Regardless that some great players and champions came out of such.

Yet if you talk about the current crop of weak champions of lack there of which this era has produced since 03-04 outside of two players. They get all defensive and call you a troll.


We can slam current WTA today, calling it the weakest pile of competitive crap in history, and no one has a problem with it and most everyone will agree its the laughing stock of the entire sports world currently. .. Yet when we talk about current state of men's tennis, where only two players are even CAPABLE of winning a slam or staying consistent. Or how the slams have been monopolized where Fed and Nadal have won something like 21 of last 20 some slams... OH NO!! We cant do that!!!

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:04 PM
What is wrong with longtime tennis fans being sorely dissapointed in the state of BOTH the current womens and mens fields. Really both genders in recent years are producing the worst fields in history. Why wouldnt those of us who have been interested and followed the sport a long time be dissapointed in that. You are the only one who seems to think the game is in great shape even with hopeless hacks like Safina, Davydenko, Blake, Jankovic, Ivanovic, occupying such high spots on the totem poll in recent years. Both tours, the womens moreso than the mens, but both to some degree are suffering from their worst TV ratings and revenues in many years. There is serious concern about the future of the sport. Is there anyone who believes the current lack of depth of the fields is not related to that somehow.

But whenever there's any discussion on here, YOU feel the need to mention how much you hate today's game. I ask you once, I ask a thousandth time, if you hate today's game on both sides, WHY DON'T YOU STOP WATCHING? Don't try to patronize the people who actually do like the players of today's game and ***** and moan about how much you miss the 90s. If you miss the 90s so much, stop watching today's game, pop in your VHS tapes, and watch one of those Korda/Rios epics which you remember to be so grand. :roll:

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 10:06 PM
You need to stay on your meds then, if another man's success makes you so depressed. Get off the ledge! Don't jump!

Flaming is not helping your argument.

As far as the rest of your post goes, I tell you guys time and time again, if watching today's tennis makes you so sad, nothing's stopping you from watching the S&V borefests of the 90s.

Yes, because mindless, tactically challenged, net-fearing baseliners grinding in neverending rallies is just oh-so exciting. Must be the reason for this new tennis boom we're living through....not.


Seriously though, if Davydenko makes you depressed, you may want to ask your doctor if you have the right dosage.

More flaming.

BTW, No one will even remember Davydenko even 2 years after his mercy-retirement. The general public already cares nothing for the guy.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:08 PM
Nothing is wrong with it. Its a double standard. Fans of the current era, who think this is the greatest most competitive era since sliced bread, will dog each and every other era trying to make cases to build this one up.. Comments like, "Oh tennis is the most competitive era today," or "Guys today have a greater toll taken on their body than ever before." And they will trash Laver's era or Pete's to no end. Regardless that some great players and champions came out of such.

Yet if you talk about the current crop of weak champions of lack there of which this era has produced since 03-04 outside of two players. They get all defensive and call you a troll.


We can slam current WTA today, calling it the weakest pile of competitive crap in history, and no one has a problem with it and most everyone will agree its the laughing stock of the entire sports world currently. .. Yet when we talk about current state of men's tennis, where only two players are even CAPABLE of winning a slam or staying consistent... OH NO!! We cant do that!!!

Nope --- and it's irrelevant because Davydenko will win the US Open this year.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:09 PM
OK fair enough but arent you seeing the problem here. Even those times he plays well enough to win vs someone like Federer in a big match he still cant, in fact he gets 0 sets or if he is lucky he gets 1 set like tis match you refer to. Your own words "he chokes as usual". Doesnt that say it all when there is a perennial top 5 player of this generation?



Well, I mean, the 90s wasn't that awesome either (other than the early 90s). You had guys like Rusedski, Rios, Moya, etc. winning slams, or taking high positions on the rankings too. It's not like the late 90s was the greatest generation either.



Now the 80s on the other hand was great, especially the late 80s.




I think Davydenko actually does have the game to win a slam (especially when he peaks his level of play, considering he literally toyed with Roddick and Nadal at Miami). He just needs to put his head on straight for once.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:10 PM
What is wrong with longtime tennis fans being sorely dissapointed in the state of BOTH the current womens and mens fields. Really both genders in recent years are producing the worst fields in history. Why wouldnt those of us who have been interested and followed the sport a long time be dissapointed in that. You are the only one who seems to think the game is in great shape even with hopeless hacks like Safina, Davydenko, Blake, Jankovic, Ivanovic, occupying such high spots on the totem poll in recent years.

hey Davy is on the same level as guys like
Martin
Pioline
Ramirez
Clerc
Dibbs
Mayer
Gilbert

And he is a lot better than guys like Jimmy Arias, Eliot Teltscher,

Davy had a couple really good seasons and a few big wins..he deserved a rank 3 when he got it. He won a master series went deep in the slams that year and won 5 titles. He is definitely not the worst player to be in the top 4 and is definitely no worse than any of the guys listed..he might not have a slam final like Martin or Pioline but he was a good player on the tour. Seriously, Gilbert was a helpless hack who got to number 4 same goes for guys like Dibbs and Arias..nobody thought they would get slams...davy actually had a shot at points in time and people actually thought he could do it if he played his best.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Yet when we talk about current state of men's tennis, where only two players are even CAPABLE of winning a slam or staying consistent. Or how the slams have been monopolized where Fed and Nadal have won something like 21 of last 20 some slams... OH NO!! We cant do that!!!


Quoted for truth.

JeMar
08-11-2009, 10:11 PM
Nothing is wrong with it. Its a double standard. Fans of the past era, who think this was the greatest most competitive era since sliced bread, will dog this era trying to make cases to build that one up.. Comments like, "Oh the 90s was the most competitive era ever," or "Guys back then had a greater toll taken on their body than ever before." And they will trash this era to no end.

Yet if you talk about the lack of a dominant champion, which this era has produced, they get all defensive and start trolling.


We can slam current WTA today, calling it the weakest pile of competitive crap in history, and no one has a problem with it.. Yet when we talk about Pete's era, where every player and his mother could win a slam like they were on sale... OH NO!! We cant do that!!!

The funny part is I really didn't have to change that much.

Before some accuses me of manipulating quotes, I'm making this blatantly obvious on purpose. Those are not GS' words, they are mine.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 10:12 PM
Nothing is wrong with it. Its a double standard. Fans of the current era, who think this is the greatest most competitive era since sliced bread, will dog each and every other era trying to make cases to build this one up.. Comments like, "Oh tennis is the most competitive era today," or "Guys today have a greater toll taken on their body than ever before." And they will trash Laver's era or Pete's to no end.

Yet if you talk about the current crop of weak champions of lack there of which this era has produced since 03-04 outside of two players. They get all defensive and call you a troll.

Yeah that is exactly it. I was laughing in the other thread how certain poster were saying Helena Sukova, widely recognized as the best female player to never win a major, very bad luck to peak during the joint dominance of Navratilova, Graf, and Evert but still coming up with multiple huge wins over those greats to make her slam finals, was some sort of pusher bum. Even more outrageous some of these same posters were even saying the great Margaret Court looked like a pusher who was playing badminton, or mocking players like Mandlikova and Goolagong who carved out 4-7 slams in eras with 2 or 3 dominant top 4 players all time. Yet these same people then accuse me of trolling because I am now awed of the talents of people like Safina, Jankovic, and the luckiest 2 slam win ever- Kuznetsova. What a joke.

Same with the men of course. In fact it becomes even more comical here. Many of the *******s and even the *********s (and I am a big Nadal fan by the way) sayings things like the Laver era were just a bunch of country club players for Laver to beat up on. So I guess Newcombe, Rosewall, Hoad, Gonzales, Stan Smith, Arthur Ashe, Jan Kodes, Ilie Nastase, and others were just country club caliber, LOL! Yet these same people try to build up Roddick as this amazing legend who deserves 7 or 8 slams if it werent for Federer. Or these same people mocking the abilities of someone like Courier, a dominant #1 in the early 90s who won 4 slams over the likes of Sampras, Agassi, Becker, Edberg as some fluke who was nothing but a forehand. Or mocking players like Rafter and Ivanisevic who won 2 U.S Opens and 2 Wimbledon finals or reached a ton of Wimbledon finals with some huge victories as these sort of glorifed pushovers. Yet these same people are awwing how amazing and talented wannabees like Davydenko, Blake, and Gonzalez are and then calling you a troll or a 90s fanatic if you question that.

Double standards would be the biggest understatement ever.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:12 PM
hey Davy is on the same level as guys like
Martin
Pioline
Ramirez
Clerc
Dibbs
Mayer
Gilbert

And he is a lot better than guys like Jimmy Arias, Eliot Teltscher,

Davy had a couple really good seasons and a few big wins..he deserved a rank 3 when he got it. He won a master series went deep in the slams that year and won 5 titles. He is definitely not the worst player to be in the top 4 and is definitely no worse than any of the guys listed..he might not have a slam final like Martin or Pioline but he was a good player on the tour. Seriously, Gilbert was a helpless hack who got to number 4 same goes for guys like Dibbs and Arias..nobody thought they would get slams...davy actually had a shot at points in time and people actually thought he could do it if he played his best.



Actually ND for a point in time had some of the worst luck of the draw. Every time he peaked for a tournament he kept running into Federer.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 10:14 PM
I agree late 90s were really nothing special. Competition dropped quite a bit. But at the same time, the early mid 90s was very solid. You had some threats all around on every surface.. You have youre clay court specialist, than you had your threats on grass and even hardcourts. Even those deadly threats right underneath the top like even a Krajicek, Korda or a Stich.. You never knew when they were going to light it up and strike.. They were actually that good.. Just no consistent.


I thought the 00's were actually going to turn and we would see some major players coming and actually finally steal some slams and interject themselves.. Where are they though? Murray and Djoker were the best bet.. They cant even reach finals at this point, much less win slams.


And I do think its a two way street.. Yes.. Roger and Fed are very dominant.. And one of the greats. But that doesnt excuse the field, for not rising up and making careers themselves..

Its a cop out saying Fed and Nadal are too dominant. Are they so dominant that guys like Murray and Djoker cant even beat who they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, en route to the slam finals? How about the others guys just arent maybe as great as advertised and cant handle the pressure?

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:19 PM
I agree late 90s were really nothing special. Competition dropped quite a bit. But at the same time, the early mid 90s was very solid. You had some threats all around on every surface.. You have youre clay court specialist, than you had your threats on grass and even hardcourts. Even those deadly threats right underneath the top like even a Krajicek, Korda or a Stich.. You never knew when they were going to light it up and strike.. They were actually that good.. Just no consistent.


I thought the 00's were actually going to turn and we would see some major players coming and actually finally steal some slams and interject themselves.. Where are they though? Murray and Djoker were the best bet.. They cant even reach finals at this point, much less win slams.


And I do think its a two street.. Yes.. Roger and Fed are very dominant.. And one of the greats. But that doesnt excuse the field, for not rising up and making careers themselves..

Its a cop out saying Fed and Nadal are too dominant. Are they so dominant that guys like Murray and Djoker cant even beat who they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, en route to the slam finals?



I think Djokovic is a major disappointment and totally overrated (the stars completely aligned for him to win that slam), but Murray on the other hand has not yet. He has been a little bit unlucky, but if he doesn't make a move at the USO (at least make it to the final) I think it's safe to say that the overrating arguments might come into play.

Blinkism
08-11-2009, 10:20 PM
And I do think its a two way street.. Yes.. Roger and Fed are very dominant.. And one of the greats. But that doesnt excuse the field, for not rising up and making careers themselves..

Its a cop out saying Fed and Nadal are too dominant. Are they so dominant that guys like Murray and Djoker cant even beat who they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, en route to the slam finals? How about the others guys just arent maybe as great as advertised and cant handle the pressure?

Excellent point

Especially about Murray.

I disagree with NamRanger, though. I don't see slams in Murray's future.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:21 PM
Wasn't this a thread a/b Davy's USO chances? And GS and GSF hijack it w/ more 90s talk...:roll:

Cry me a freakin river...

egn
08-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Actually ND for a point in time had some of the worst luck of the draw. Every time he peaked for a tournament he kept running into Federer.

True..2006 Australian Open their match was definitely the best match and lets not forget how sad it was the 2007 French Open semifinal. It was the closest straight set match ever. 7-5, 7-6, 7-6 and davy fought to the end with Fed winning the tiebreak 9-7. The match literally could have been changed if Davy instead of losing 5 specific points had won them. 2006 AUstralian Open was close as well the last two sets were tiebreaks 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 7-6. Davydenko was one hell of a fighter and actually showed he could compete with Federer something guys like Pioline never showed. Pioline was the worst guy to ever get two shots at a slam final. It was such a joke watching Sampras trash him in wimbledon..it was unbareable. Davy got beaten hard at the US Open though I admit, but he had some impressive wins there. His comeback against Hass down two sets to love..davy was a fighter.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:22 PM
Excellent point

Especially about Murray.

I disagree with NamRanger, though. I don't see slams in Murray's future.


I think Murray has to make his move now at the USO or he faces huge pressure at the next AO. If he doesn't win a slam in the next two he's in big trouble.

bolo
08-11-2009, 10:23 PM
I think Davydenko's serve is anything but average.

he is basically average on all the serving stats. He is ranked 39 on 1st serve % points won and we are talking about a stat. that combines serving + ground game; we know davydenko has a killer ground game.

He is also ranked 76 in ace counts. If you adjusted his ace count for the # of games played he would probably fall even fall further down. It's really not even close how far away from the top he is in terms of serving.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 10:23 PM
I actually do agree too the late 90s mens field wasnt so great well 1999 with Agassi's comeback and Rafter's improved showings at Wimbledon it made some surge back. The 1990-1995 period though was incredibly tough. Look at the 4 semifinalists of many of the slams in the 90s:

1990 Australian Open- Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Noah
1990 French Open- Agassi, Gomez, Svensson, Muster
1990 Wimbledon- Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Ivanisevic
1990 U.S Open- Becker, Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe
1991 Australian Open- Becker, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe
1991 French Open- Becker, Stich, Edberg, Courier
1991 Wimbledon- Edberg, Becker, Stich, Wheaton
1991 U.S Open- Lendl, Edberg, Courier, Connors
1992 Australian Open- Courier, Edberg, Krajicek, Ferreira
1992 French Open- Courier, Agassi, Korda, LeConte
1992 Wimbledon- Agassi, Sampras, Ivanisevic, McEnroe
1992 U.S Open- Courier, Sampras, Edberg, Chang
1993 Australian Open- Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Stich
1993 French Open- Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Krajicek
1993 Wimbledon- Becker, Sampras, Courier, Edberg
1993 U.S Open- Sampras, Pioline, Volkov, Masur
1994 Australian Open- Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Martin
1994 French Open- Bruguera, Courier, Berasetegui, Larrson
1994 Wimbledon- Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Martin
1994 U.S Open- Agassi, Stich, Novacek, Martin
1995 Australian Open- Agassi, Sampras, Chang, Krickstein
1995 French Open- Muster, Bruguera, Chang, Kafelnikov
1995 Wimbledon- Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Ivanisevic
1995 U.S Open- Sampras, Becker, Courier, Edberg

With the occasional exception like obviously the weaker semifinal lineup for the 93 and 94 U.S Opens notice the number of times you have 2, 3, sometimes even 4 true greats of the sport in the semis together. Also how many times you have 3 or 4 slam champions in the semis together.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:24 PM
True..2006 Australian Open their match was definitely the best match and lets not forget how sad it was the 2007 French Open semifinal. It was the closest straight set match ever. 7-5, 7-6, 7-6 and davy fought to the end with Fed winning the tiebreak 9-7. The match literally could have been changed if Davy instead of losing 5 specific points had won them. 2006 AUstralian Open was close as well the last two sets were tiebreaks 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 7-6. Davydenko was one hell of a fighter and actually showed he could compete with Federer something guys like Pioline never showed. Pioline was the worst guy to ever get two shots at a slam final. It was such a joke watching Sampras trash him in wimbledon..it was unbareable. Davy got beaten hard at the US Open though I admit, but he had some impressive wins there. His comeback against Hass down two sets to love..davy was a fighter.


The sad part is from 2006-2007 Davydenko ran into Federer at...


AO 06
USO 06
FO 07
USO 07


Two which were very winnable for him.

NamRanger
08-11-2009, 10:25 PM
he is basically average on all the serving stats. He is ranked 39 on 1st serve % points won and we are talking about a stat. that combines serving + ground game; we know davydenko has a killer ground game.

He is also ranked 76 in ace counts. If you adjusted his ace count for the # of games played he would probably fall even fall further down. It's really not even close how far away from the top he is in terms of serving.



When Davydenko zeros in on his serve it's alot better than you think it is. The guy can bomb 130+ at will when he's on. He's a streaky server, but his server is not average by any stretch of the imagination.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:27 PM
he is basically average on all the serving stats. He is ranked 39 on 1st serve % points won and we are talking about a stat. that combines serving + ground game; we know davydenko has a killer ground game.

He is also ranked 76 in ace counts. If you adjusted his ace count for the # of games played he would probably fall even fall further down. It's really not even close how far away from the top he is in terms of serving.

TBF he was injured first half of the year and only played 3 matches going into Roland Garros, another reason he will win as he will be fresh going into the Open instead of coming into the tournament after playing 70/80 matches like he usually does.

grafselesfan
08-11-2009, 10:28 PM
The sad part is from 2006-2007 Davydenko ran into Federer at...


AO 06
USO 06
FO 07
USO 07


Two which were very winnable for him.

I agree the AO 06 was winnable for him without Federer. What others ones though? The U.S Open in 06, well Blake owns him head to head, and I would pick Roddick over Davydenko in a big slam match (and he also owns Daydenko head to head). The French Open 07, no way Davydenko is beating Nadal in a French Open final. U.S Open 2007? I am pretty sure Davydenko hasnt done well vs Djokovic up to now, especialy in big matches.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Wasn't this a thread a/b Davy's USO chances? And GS and GSF hijack it w/ more 90s talk...:roll:

Cry me a freakin river...


If you were so concerned with preserving the original topic, then you would have avoided posting your own flame-ridden posts about another member, AND pointless comments about the very tennis era you claim is not the subject of this thread.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:29 PM
The sad part is from 2006-2007 Davydenko ran into Federer at...


AO 06
USO 06
FO 07
USO 07


Two which were very winnable for him.

Not to mention '05 RG roid rage Puerta outlasted him when he was playing at a very high level and Nadal wasn't at his best on clay yet.

bolo
08-11-2009, 10:29 PM
When Davydenko zeros in on his serve it's alot better than you think it is. The guy can bomb 130+ at will when he's on. He's a streaky server, but his server is not average by any stretch of the imagination.

No all the stats. say he is very average. Just because you have seen him hit a few 130 mph serves in a row means nothing.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 10:29 PM
Wasn't this a thread a/b Davy's USO chances? And GS and GSF hijack it w/ more 90s talk...:roll:

Cry me a freakin river...

Alright back on topic... Dabydenko will be lucky to even see a quarterfinals appearance at the USO much less win it

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 10:32 PM
Davydenko will win the U.S. Open during the same year Safina wins the calendar slam....for a third time.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:32 PM
I thought the 00's were actually going to turn and we would see some major players coming and actually finally steal some slams and interject themselves.. Where are they though? Murray and Djoker were the best bet.. They cant even reach finals at this point, much less win slams.


And I do think its a two way street.. Yes.. Roger and Fed are very dominant.. And one of the greats. But that doesnt excuse the field, for not rising up and making careers themselves..

Its a cop out saying Fed and Nadal are too dominant. Are they so dominant that guys like Murray and Djoker cant even beat who they are SUPPOSED TO BEAT, en route to the slam finals? How about the others guys just arent maybe as great as advertised and cant handle the pressure?

The problem with tennis fans now is we expect consistency. An extremely high level of it. For years top players would exit early in a tournament or two and slump but then rebound and nobody would care. Look at Edberg the three yeras he finaled in wimbledon (2 win 1 loss) he failed to get to the quarters of the us open..though he had allready been to the semis twice. Nobody said much, hell nobody cared. It was normal. THe problem is Federer has set a bar so high and others now have to match it to be even considered good. Djokovic's past three years have been pretty damn good actually. He has 1 win in slams, 1 runner up, 4 semis and 2 quarters. That is 8 out of 12 slams past the 4th round..He has 11 titles, 4 being master series, 1 being a year end championship and 1 slam. He has a winning percentage of 78% over the past three yeras and nine runner rups..1 being a slam and 5 being master series. If guys like Fed had not raised the bar to an extreme level people would be happy..but when people see Fed going to final after final and an early exit happens once in a blue mooon people expect others to be able to this. What Federer has done is unreal and it is time to stop expecting DJokovic or Murray to be able to do it becuase they probably won't and that does not make them bad. Djokovic and Murray have been strong players and have proven to be really good and let them play. People are saying they won't ever win a slam..are either of them even close to the end. We still don't know, yet you count them out because they are not outplaying Federer week in and out..that is impossible. Federer has been the most consistently player in the history of tennis.

bolo
08-11-2009, 10:33 PM
TBF he was injured first half of the year and only played 3 matches going into Roland Garros, another reason he will win as he will be fresh going into the Open instead of coming into the tournament after playing 70/80 matches like he usually does.

I like the freshness angle Breaker.

But even in previous years I don't remember his serve being anything special. Although I will try and verify that when I get a chance.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:37 PM
Don't think so. He was a good fast hardcourt player, but a strong offensive game could take him down easily at the US Open. He is much better at the Aussie even though results show otherwise..I would not bet highly on it.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 10:38 PM
The problem with tennis fans now is we expect consistency. An extremely high level of it. For years top players would exit early in a tournament or two and slump but then rebound and nobody would care. Look at Edberg the three yeras he finaled in wimbledon (2 win 1 loss) he failed to get to the quarters of the us open..though he had allready been to the semis twice. Nobody said much, hell nobody cared. It was normal. THe problem is Federer has set a bar so high and others now have to match it to be even considered good. Djokovic's past three years have been pretty damn good actually. He has 1 win in slams, 1 runner up, 4 semis and 2 quarters. That is 8 out of 12 slams past the 4th round..He has 11 titles, 4 being master series, 1 being a year end championship and 1 slam. He has a winning percentage of 78% over the past three yeras and nine runner rups..1 being a slam and 5 being master series. If guys like Fed had not raised the bar to an extreme level people would be happy..but when people see Fed going to final after final and an early exit happens once in a blue mooon people expect others to be able to this. What Federer has done is unreal and it is time to stop expecting DJokovic or Murray to be able to do it becuase they probably won't and that does not make them bad. Djokovic and Murray have been strong players and have proven to be really good and let them play. People are saying they won't ever win a slam..are either of them even close to the end. We still don't know, yet you count them out because they are not outplaying Federer week in and out..that is impossible. Federer has been the most consistently player in the history of tennis.



My problem with these two (Djoker and Murray) is this... they actually HAVE THE GAMES to dethrone Roger and Nadal I think.. If we look at what they can do and hell what they have done to even Federer at non slam events.. They actually are both leading in the h2h category vs. Fed. Djoker gave Nadal all he could handle at Madrid.


So Murray and Djoker are proving themselves that they have what it takes... At non majors. Yet.. when they slams roll around.. what happens..Loosses to Verdasco, Haas, Kolschreiber, and both lose to Roddick?? What?? THen you think to yourself.. Whats going on here? They just got done beating Fed and winning the non slam events, yet they cant even get by the lower ranked guys en route to the finals?

bolo
08-11-2009, 10:39 PM
Don't think so. He was a good fast hardcourt player, but a strong offensive game could take him down easily at the US Open. He is much better at the Aussie even though results show otherwise..I would not bet highly on it.

How do davydenko's stats. compare at the U.S. open versus australian? I would have guessed that he would have done a little better at the australian overall.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:42 PM
My problem with these two (Djoker and Murray) is this... they actually HAVE THE GAMES to dethrone Roger and Nadal I think.. If we look at what they can do and hell what they have done to even Federer at non slam events.. They actually are both leading in the h2h category vs. Fed. Djoker gave Nadal all he could handle at Madrid.


So Murray and Djoker are proving themselves that they have what it takes... At non majors. Yet.. when they slams roll around.. what happens..Loosses to Verdasco, Haas, Kolschreiber, and both lose to Roddick?? What?? THen you think to yourself.. Whats going on here? They just got done beating Fed and winning the non slam events, yet they cant even get by the lower ranked guys en route to the finals?

Are you kidding they're in their fourth year of professional tennis have 3 slam finals and a slam between them -- except for Federer it is actually normal in tennis history for people to lose to underdogs.

Davydenko this year will change that to include Federer.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 10:43 PM
If you were so concerned with preserving the original topic, then you would have avoided posting your own flame-ridden posts about another member, AND pointless comments about the very tennis era you claim is not the subject of this thread.

Read my posts again. I actually DID post on the topic, something I've yet to see you do, yet you come in here patronizing and antagonizing me, seeking attention. You haven't given your opinion, just come in to be GS and GSF's cheerleader. Do me a favor, form an original opinion every once in a while.

GameSampras
08-11-2009, 10:44 PM
Are you kidding they're in their fourth year of professional tennis have 3 slam finals and a slam between them -- except for Federer it is actually normal in tennis history for people to lose to underdogs.

Davydenko this year will change that to include Federer.



What does Fed have to do with this?? Does he have anything to do with how underachieving both Murray and Djoker have been doing this year at the slam?


PS: God you have alot of faith in Davydenko. LOL

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:45 PM
I like the freshness angle Breaker.

But even in previous years I don't remember his serve being anything special. Although I will try and verify that when I get a chance.

His stats are probably only slightly above average but it is odd because in some matches he decides to just spin his serves in which puzzles me -- especially when you see tournaments like last year in Miami where he regularly bombed in serves at 130 mph+ and blew opponents, especially Roddick and Nadal, out of the water in the semis and final.

egn
08-11-2009, 10:48 PM
How do davydenko's stats. compare at the U.S. open versus australian? I would have guessed that he would have done a little better at the australian overall.

He is 17-8 at Aussie and 18-8 at US..he missed the Aussie this year though and was unfortunate to run into Fed at the Aussie earlier than at the US.

My problem with these two (Djoker and Murray) is this... they actually HAVE THE GAMES to dethrone Roger and Nadal I think.. If we look at what they can do and hell what they have done to even Federer at non slam events.. They actually are both leading in the h2h category vs. Fed. Djoker gave Nadal all he could handle at Madrid.


So Murray and Djoker are proving themselves that they have what it takes... At non majors. Yet.. when they slams roll around.. what happens..Loosses to Verdasco, Haas, Kolschreiber, and both lose to Roddick?? What?? THen you think to yourself.. Whats going on here? They just got done beating Fed and winning the non slam events, yet they cant even get by the lower ranked guys en route to the finals?

Give it time. THey are young still and as I said even in primes players fell. Goran/Agassi/Chang all had the game to beat Sampras yet rarely did it. Vilas had the game to beat Borg etc.

There is nothing wrong with losing to Roddick who proved that this year he has the game to beat Fed in the big moments but can't put it together. They will get through the slams and get to finals. Just like most players it will not be every single slam final. I see them each getting to a few more semis and finals, but it is not easy get to every slam final. At least they are still proving they have the skills. They just need to become more consistent. Remember Federer or Sampras prior to their prime. Sampras won the 1990 US Open and then could not seem to do any substantial slam damage until 92..Federer won Hamburg and then went out 1st round at the French Open. I would say their careers turned out quite amazing. Give Djoker and Murray a bit of time, they might develop into greats or fade..but only time will tell. It is not fair though to say they are nothings because they can't make it deep in slams every single time. Name the last guy besides Fed to get to three slam finals in a row..pretty sure it was agassi in 99...sampras then in 94..lendl in the 80s..i think you get my point. It is really hard to do that. Getting to two back to back is rare as well. Not to mention making all 4 semis or 4 in a row is extremely rare, DJokovic actually did that at a point in time which was impressive. JUst learn to expect results that come with young talented players and not peak primed GOAT candidates.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 10:50 PM
What does Fed have to do with this?? Does he have anything to do with how underachieving both Murray and Djoker have been doing this year at the slam?


PS: God you have alot of faith in Davydenko. LOL

No one except for all time greats such as Federer and Sampras are consistent every year in slams, and only Federer seems to never lose to a clear underdog in a slam -- Murray and Djokovic are in their early 20's and Djokovic already has a slam there is plenty of time.

Unfortunately the double d train will stop them at the US Open this year but other years they will have chances.

roysid
08-11-2009, 10:50 PM
The problem with Davy is that he doesn't care. He treats it as a job and plays all matches in same way. Doesn't go the distance in slams

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 10:57 PM
Read my posts again. I actually DID post on the topic, something I've yet to see you do, yet you come in here patronizing and antagonizing me, seeking attention.

The one who seeks attention is the one who often appears in threads to kick the message or messenger referring Sampras and/or 90s tennis in a positive manner, which has all the signs of trolling.

You haven't given your opinion, just come in to be GS and GSF's cheerleader.

Learn to read:

Post #58. Opinion on topic.



Do me a favor, form an original opinion every once in a while.


Oh, you mean like the "original opinion" that Sampras, the 90s, S&V all suck? Yes, i've never read that around this board before. Quite original.

フェデラー
08-11-2009, 11:03 PM
My problem with these two (Djoker and Murray) is this... they actually HAVE THE GAMES to dethrone Roger and Nadal I think.. If we look at what they can do and hell what they have done to even Federer at non slam events.. They actually are both leading in the h2h category vs. Fed. Djoker gave Nadal all he could handle at Madrid.


So Murray and Djoker are proving themselves that they have what it takes... At non majors. Yet.. when they slams roll around.. what happens..Loosses to Verdasco, Haas, Kolschreiber, and both lose to Roddick?? What?? THen you think to yourself.. Whats going on here? They just got done beating Fed and winning the non slam events, yet they cant even get by the lower ranked guys en route to the finals?

Federer has a positive H2h against Djokovic. 7-4 I believe.

jamesblakefan#1
08-11-2009, 11:08 PM
The one who seeks attention is the one who often appears in threads to kick the message or messenger referring Sampras and/or 90s tennis in a positive manner, which has all the signs of trolling.

Oh grow up...GS and GSF are big boys/girls, and they are more than capable of defending themselves when they see fit to...no need for you to come in and ad-hominem attack me, in not one, but TWO posts.

Learn to read: Post #58. Opinion on topic

Yeah, after you'd already attacked me not once, but twice unwarranted.

Davydenko will win the U.S. Open during the same year Safina wins the calendar slam....for a third time.

Ohh, a shot at Davydenko AND Safina...more original thought from you, I see. You and GameSampras must have come together to get that line and the Davystinko line...true marvels of you guy's posting abilities. :roll:

Oh, you mean like the "original opinion" that Sampras, the 90s, S&V all suck? Yes, i've never read that around this board before. Quite original.

Where did I say all S&V players, Sampras sucked? Don't put words in my mouth, I was stating what I've stated so many times to GS and GSF, if they abhor this era of tennis so much, there's nothing stopping them from going back to watch the tennis of the 90s and stop watching today's game completely. Never said that all S&V players sucked, so don't make up things.

Sentinel
08-11-2009, 11:17 PM
Excellent analysis, Breaker. I am with you.

Davydenko it is.

dropshot winner
08-11-2009, 11:21 PM
Davydenko is a glorified journeyman who just happens to hang around the top 5 or 6 somehow in this weak era. It is depressing to see guys like that year after year stay that high up. I mean 1 or 2 years would be fine, but maybe a 5th year he will get back up that high again after an injury layoff no less. Ugh. I miss when there were guys like Stich, Krajicek, Chang, and Ivanisevic there who atleast had the talent and ability to upset the top dogs, and had that little fighting chance. Sure they were unlikely and big underdogs if they went up against top form Sampras, Agassi, Becker, or Edberg. However you knew they had a little chance, they had the potential win take out any of the greats and even maybe win a slam on a given day, there was some threat and anticipation of what might happen. Now we have guys like Davydenko and Blake who you know will not, cannot, and never will do this.

Will he ever win a slam, NO, NO, no, no, no, NO, no. He has nothing that can take him to a slam title. Federer and Nadal probably laugh at the sheer thought of ever losing to him in a slam final or semi, if he makes it vs one of them they essentialy look at it as a walkover I am willing to bet.
So one of the best ballstrikers since Agassi is a glorified journeyman in your eyes?
Seriously, you've got a severe case of nostalgia.

At his best Davydenko can outplay anyone from the baseline, past or present.
He gave Nadal one of his thoughest clay challenges of his life (Rome 07), and was the last one to really dismantle Nadal (Miami 08).

He underachieved big time, but he can still defeat anyone on clay and hardcourt on his day.

Breaker
08-11-2009, 11:38 PM
Why thank you Sentinel though the analysis was more from the tennis gods (Berdych, Almagro, and Hewitt) than myself really.

So one of the best ballstrikers since Agassi is a glorified journeyman in your eyes?
Seriously, you've got a severe case of nostalgia.

At his best Davydenko can outplay anyone from the baseline, past or present.
He gave Nadal one of his thoughest clay challenges of his life (Rome 07), and was the last one to really dismantle Nadal (Miami 08).

He underachieved big time, but he can still defeat anyone on clay and hardcourt on his day.

Exactly, I will never forget how he made prime Coria on clay look average at Roland Garros in '05. Unfortunate that he had such mental problems with Federer (until this year's US Open at least).

フェデラー
08-11-2009, 11:40 PM
Yea because he has been the 3-5th most consistent player in this decade.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-11-2009, 11:44 PM
..true marvels of you guy's posting abilities. :roll:

^ Typically, when all else fails for you, again comes the flames, and you sidestepping the fact that you were wrong to accuse me of not offering an opinion on the topic, when that was proven.


Oh grow up...GS and GSF are big boys/girls, and they are more than capable of defending themselves when they see fit to...no need for you to come in and ad-hominem attack me, in not one, but TWO posts.

Not so fast. The point is that you are trolling/flaming when you suggest a member requires so-called meds:

You need to stay on your meds then, if another man's success makes you so depressed. Get off the ledge! Don't jump!

Seriously though, if Davydenko makes you depressed, you may want to ask your doctor if you have the right dosage.

Where did I say all S&V players, Sampras sucked?

First....

S&V borefests of the 90s

Simply referring to the style (rather than specific players) painted a broad stroke of condemnation over all who used that particular style.

Additionally, your posts to anyone favorably comparing Sampras or the 90s over the current era are not in the neighborhood of praise. I've mentioned this in another thread.

Cry me a freakin river...

It is essentially telling two members to "get over" their appreciation of a certain era of tennis, which also demonstrates your negative feelings toward all concerned. As mentioned in another thread, you posting snide remarks about (among other things) Sampras' back hair and sweating, is not exactly a compliment, or a joke made in innocent fun. Coupled with your negative remarks about 90s tennis, and there you go.

Tony48
08-11-2009, 11:45 PM
Would be nice to see Davy get to the finals at least.

DownTheLine
08-11-2009, 11:55 PM
LOL enough said.

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 12:08 AM
Not so fast. The point is that you are trolling/flaming when you suggest a member requires so-called meds:

It was an obvious joke, she said she was freakin depressed over a tennis player, that's fair game for me to joke on if I see fit to do so. And if GSF had a problem w/ it, more than free to defend themselves, which they did.

Simply referring to the style (rather than specific players) painted a broad stroke of condemnation over all who used that particular style.

Additionally, your posts to anyone favorably comparing Sampras or the 90s over the current era are not in the neighborhood of praise. I've mentioned this in another thread.

It is essentially telling two members to "get over" their appreciation of a certain era of tennis, which also demonstrates your negative feelings toward all concerned. As mentioned in another thread, you posting snide remarks about (among other things) Sampras' back hair and sweating, is not exactly a compliment, or a joke made in innocent fun. Coupled with your negative remarks about 90s tennis, and there you go.

Saying "S&V is boring" and "All guys who play S&V suck" are two distinctly different things. I eluded to the first, not the 2nd, so again, don't put thoughts into my head or words into my mouth.

And me saying Pete had backhair means I think he sucked? That's terrible investigative work. If I ever get killed, I don't want P.I THUNDERVOLLEY on the case, that's for sure.

They think the 90s was better than the 2000s, that's fine, but no reason to bash every player of this era just b/c you think the 90s guys were gods. Calling Davydenko, a top 5 player for several years, a "glorified journeyman" is just shows a total bias and lack of knowledge about the game of tennis. I along w/ other posters called out GSF on this nonsense. No need for you to get all analytical and become the sheriff of TT b/c I made a joke at GSF's expense. If they had a problem w/ it, they could've responded. No need for you to jump in the middle of it and come to their defense not once, but twice for no reason.

Your first post in this thread was coming after me, I didn't respond. Your 2nd post once again attacked me and then your third post you finally get around to posting some drivel about Davydenko and Safina, your 2 BFF's and favorite targets. So you wanted my attention - you got it. You wanted this thread to go off the rails and turn into a pi$$ing match - you got it. Don't act as if there aren't plenty of barbs thrown around from all directions on here, believe me I seen worse and said worse on here than some joke a/b GSF needing her meds. So get over yourself.

dwhiteside
08-12-2009, 01:25 AM
To any who'd disparage Blake or Davydenko, gaze upon this!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmftkVmBMl4&feature=channel_page

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 01:55 AM
To any who'd disparage Blake or Davydenko, gaze upon this!: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmftkVmBMl4&feature=channel_page

Thanks for posting this vid of two 'clowns' of this era...:roll: :D

Great match, really shows what both guys are capable of at their best.

Here's more, for the folks who ridicule Davydenko.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvaYDyVXAww&feature=fvw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yh7ENEEvdc

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 02:28 AM
all that davydenko has is consistent groundstrokes, his serve is average and hasn't got and big weapons. putting a 0 slam wonder over the likes of federer,nadal,murray and roddick is just laughable. he has a losing record over all of them too.

he chokes to death when he sees federer on the other side of the net, he hasn't got mental strength or determination like the other players do.

FlamEnemY
08-12-2009, 02:55 AM
Davydenko?

Ok. Works for me. Davy it is.

aphex
08-12-2009, 03:30 AM
davy is easily the best ballstriker in the atp.

the guy was no.4 without a serve.

the serve is 70% of player's game at that level.

imagine how good the rest of his game is...

Wolland
08-12-2009, 03:53 AM
I love the way Davydenko strikes the ball. He's hitting it early, on the rise. When you get into the top five of men's game, it means that you are playing some amazing tennis. And that is how Davydenko got there. Just remember last year's tournament in Miami. He served so well, his strokes were inch-perfect. But while he can play consistently, he can also once in a while lose to outsiders, and he doesn't know how to stand up to Roger and Rafa. This is the reason why he doesn't have a grand slam title, and is unlikely to get one at this year's US Open. Personally, I am not a huge fan, but I have to say in his defence that people underrestimate him and his game a bit too often. He definitely shouldn't be overlooked, but as I said before, his chances are slim in New York. But he might, and probably will, go into the second week of the competition.

dragonfire
08-12-2009, 04:17 AM
davy is easily the best ballstriker in the atp.

the guy was no.4 without a serve.

the serve is 70% of player's game at that level.

imagine how good the rest of his game is...


I respectfully disagree, the likes of Nalbandian and Federer are the best ball strikers on the tour. Davydenko is probably the most consistent baseliner in todays game, but not the best ball striker.

Lets not forget that nadal got to number 1 without a serve, and so did many other players - when federer got to number 1, his serve wasn't like it was today.

my_forehand
08-12-2009, 04:41 AM
Doesn't anybody understand sarcasm?

drwood
08-12-2009, 07:17 AM
I actually do agree too the late 90s mens field wasnt so great well 1999 with Agassi's comeback and Rafter's improved showings at Wimbledon it made some surge back. The 1990-1995 period though was incredibly tough. Look at the 4 semifinalists of many of the slams in the 90s:

1990 Australian Open- Lendl, Wilander, Edberg, Noah
1990 French Open- Agassi, Gomez, Svensson, Muster
1990 Wimbledon- Becker, Edberg, Lendl, Ivanisevic
1990 U.S Open- Becker, Agassi, Sampras, McEnroe
1991 Australian Open- Becker, Edberg, Lendl, McEnroe
1991 French Open- Becker, Stich, Edberg, Courier
1991 Wimbledon- Edberg, Becker, Stich, Wheaton
1991 U.S Open- Lendl, Edberg, Courier, Connors
1992 Australian Open- Courier, Edberg, Krajicek, Ferreira
1992 French Open- Courier, Agassi, Korda, LeConte
1992 Wimbledon- Agassi, Sampras, Ivanisevic, McEnroe
1992 U.S Open- Courier, Sampras, Edberg, Chang
1993 Australian Open- Courier, Edberg, Sampras, Stich
1993 French Open- Bruguera, Courier, Medvedev, Krajicek
1993 Wimbledon- Becker, Sampras, Courier, Edberg
1993 U.S Open- Sampras, Pioline, Volkov, Masur
1994 Australian Open- Sampras, Edberg, Courier, Martin
1994 French Open- Bruguera, Courier, Berasetegui, Larrson
1994 Wimbledon- Sampras, Becker, Ivanisevic, Martin
1994 U.S Open- Agassi, Stich, Novacek, Martin
1995 Australian Open- Agassi, Sampras, Chang, Krickstein
1995 French Open- Muster, Bruguera, Chang, Kafelnikov
1995 Wimbledon- Sampras, Becker, Agassi, Ivanisevic
1995 U.S Open- Sampras, Becker, Courier, Edberg

With the occasional exception like obviously the weaker semifinal lineup for the 93 and 94 U.S Opens notice the number of times you have 2, 3, sometimes even 4 true greats of the sport in the semis together. Also how many times you have 3 or 4 slam champions in the semis together.

Nice list -- a few points:

Edberg didn't make the 95 US Open semis -- that was Agassi. A lot of this is cyclical -- if you showed tennis fans at the time these lists, they would have talked about how much of a joke they were compared to the 80s fields where Connors, prime Lendl, prime Wilander, prime Becker, prime Edberg, prime McEnroe were dominating

And remember 1991 Aus Open SF was PATRICK McEnroe, not John...

Plus, Sampras didn't win his 3rd slam until 93 US Open against the weakest SF field in history, and Agassi didn't win his 3rd slam until 95 Aus Open....which make the slam SF from 1990-1994 look better in retrospect. Bottom line, its too early to determine the strength of current slam SF b/c we don't know how many slams the likes of Murray, Delpo, etc. will win.

drwood
08-12-2009, 07:19 AM
I respectfully disagree, the likes of Nalbandian and Federer are the best ball strikers on the tour. Davydenko is probably the most consistent baseliner in todays game, but not the best ball striker.

Lets not forget that nadal got to number 1 without a serve, and so did many other players - when federer got to number 1, his serve wasn't like it was today.

No, Nadal got to #1 b/c his serve became very good...that's how he was able to win Wimbledon, b/c Fed couldn't break him the entire match. Nadal had a lot of unreturnables and a very high 1st serve percentage. Even in the 07 Wimbledon final, Fed didn't break Nadal until the 5th set.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 07:46 AM
No all the stats. say he is very average. Just because you have seen him hit a few 130 mph serves in a row means nothing.



In a row? How bout multiple tournaments in a row? I have SEEN Davydenko bomb it in 120-130 consistently for whole tournaments. Sometimes I think you don't even watch tennis matches that don't involve Nadal. Davydenko in years past has usually been in the top 5 of service statistics, and not just because of his ground game either.



Nadal has an average serve. Davydenko has a GOOD serve.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 07:55 AM
It was an obvious joke, she said she was freakin depressed over a tennis player, that's fair game for me to joke on if I see fit to do so. And if GSF had a problem w/ it, more than free to defend themselves, which they did.

You call it a joke. You are entitled to that view, but it does not make it the truth.

Saying "S&V is boring" and "All guys who play S&V suck" are two distinctly different things. I eluded to the first, not the 2nd, so again, don't put thoughts into my head or words into my mouth.

Your statement was clearly a negative, blanket judgement about the players who were known for being S&V players. You cannot spin that to mean anything else.

And me saying Pete had backhair means I think he sucked? That's terrible investigative work. If I ever get killed, I don't want P.I THUNDERVOLLEY on the case, that's for sure.

More irrational flames when everything else fails you. The comments on Sampras was just more of your generally negative views on the man--then resorting to cheap slams, then (predictably) deny the intent. I can easily admit referring to Murray as a goof or anything else i've said--but the differerence here is that I am not pretending I never said it, or that the intent was anything other than a reflection of my not being fond of the player. Yet you continue to pretend to be "neutral" about Sampras, when in several threads--including this one--you revealed your true feelings.



They think the 90s was better than the 2000s, that's fine, but no reason to bash every player of this era just b/c you think the 90s guys were gods. Calling Davydenko, a top 5 player for several years, a "glorified journeyman" is just shows a total bias and lack of knowledge about the game of tennis. I along w/ other posters called out GSF on this nonsense[/quote]


Davydenko is a journeyman if--after ten years as a pro, and now 28 years old--he has not won at least ONE slam (which was impossible, since he's faild to even reach a slam final). Historically, players of his ilk find themselves swept away in the blurred backwash of history, while the usual suspects of a generation (read: mutiple slam winners) rise to stay afloat as relevant to the sport. This even applies to the likes of Todd Martin--although he made 2 slam finals--ended his career as just another "bit player" on this sport's big stage.

That is why referring to the aged, slamless Davydenko (and others like him) as a journeyman is painfully applicable.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 07:58 AM
You call it a joke. You are entitled to that view, but it does not make it the truth.



Your statement was clearly a negative, blanket judgement about the players who were known for being S&V players. You cannot spin that to mean anything else.



More irrational flames when everything else fails you. The comments on Sampras was just more of your generally negative views on the man--then resorting to cheap slams, then (predictably) deny the intent. I can easily admit referring to Murray as a goof or anything else i've said--but the differerence here is that I am not pretending I never said it, or that the intent was anything other than a reflection of my not being fond of the player. Yet you continue to pretend to be "neutral" about Sampras, when in several threads--including this one--you revealed your true feelings.



They think the 90s was better than the 2000s, that's fine, but no reason to bash every player of this era just b/c you think the 90s guys were gods. Calling Davydenko, a top 5 player for several years, a "glorified journeyman" is just shows a total bias and lack of knowledge about the game of tennis. I along w/ other posters called out GSF on this nonsense


Davydenko is a journeyman if--after ten years as a pro, and now 28 years old--he has not won at least ONE slam (which was impossible, since he's faild to even reach a slam final). Historically, players of his ilk find themselves swept away in the blurred backwash of history, while the usual suspects of a generation (read: mutiple slam winners) rise to stay afloat as relevant to the sport. This even applies to the likes of Todd Martin--although he made 2 slam finals--ended his career as just another "bit player" on this sport's big stage.

That is why referring to the aged, slamless Davydenko (and others like him) as a journeyman is painfully applicable.[/QUOTE]




Journeyman are never consistent contenders for a slam title. Todd Martin was not a journeyman (despite what many people on this forum thinks). Robert Kendrick is a journeyman because he doesn't even show up to slams half the time.

dafox
08-12-2009, 08:02 AM
My predicition is Davy to the quarters of US Open

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 08:06 AM
Theres more chance of me having a threesome with Megan Fox and Adriana Lima tonight than Davydenko winning the US Open.

Serve_Ace
08-12-2009, 08:10 AM
Theres more chance of me having a threesome with Megan Fox and Adriana Lima tonight than Davydenko winning the US Open.

Reverse that

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 08:10 AM
Theres more chance of me having a threesome with Megan Fox and Adriana Lima tonight than Davydenko winning the US Open.
Nah, there's more than a 0% chance that Davydenko wins the US Open :).

At his best, which we rarely see at slams, he can beat Djokovic, Murray (especially when he plays passive) and even Nadal/Federer with a bit of luck.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 08:11 AM
Theres more chance of me having a threesome with Megan Fox and Adriana Lima tonight than Davydenko winning the US Open.



No, Davydenko has infinitely more of a chance of winning the USO than of that happening to you. In fact, the theoretical percentage of that happening to you is 0%.

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 08:14 AM
Your statement was clearly a negative, blanket judgement about the players who were known for being S&V players. You cannot spin that to mean anything else.

The comments on Sampras was just more of your generally negative views on the man--then resorting to cheap slams, then (predictably) deny the intent. I can easily admit referring to Murray as a goof or anything else i've said--but the differerence here is that I am not pretending I never said it, or that the intent was anything other than a reflection of my not being fond of the player. Yet you continue to pretend to be "neutral" about Sampras, when in several threads--including this one--you revealed your true feelings.

Oh get over yourself. Just b/c I think Federer is a better player than Pete ever was, means I think Pete sucked? No, that's not the case. Sampras is top 5 of all time, you need to stop making inferences. I'll spell it out for you. Pete Sampras was a great player. Roger Federer is a greater player. Is that so wrong to say, or do I have to kiss Pete's *** to gain your respect?

I said he had a hairy back and sweated a lot, ONCE, that was one joke in one thread, it's not like I bring that up in every debate I have a/b Pete's game, his credentials, etc. You want to be a kangaroo court or something, putting my opinions on trial just b/c I disagree w/ you, get over yourself.

And I've said before that I found some S&V tennis to be boring. Doesn't mean I thought all S&V players sucked. Those are two distinctly differing views. I think NASCAR is boring, doesn't mean I think all NASCAR drivers suck. So I ask you again, don't put words into my mouth or thoughts into my head, making inferences off of off-hand jokes I make.

You come after me in this thread not once, but twice, just b/c I don't kiss GS and GSF's *** like you do, and I actually respect the game of tennis and love it no matter who's playing. Just b/c I disagree w/ GS and GSF, who take shots at the players of this era in every thread they post in, it makes me sick. Yet they fail to realize and recognize the Korda's, Rios', Martin's, and Pioline's of the 90s, and treat these players as gods amongst men. It's biased and a double standard.

And read back. Who were the two players I mentioned in my "go back to the 90s" jab? Rios and Korda. Last I checked, they weren't S&V players, were they? I was making a comment a/b how GS and GSF both treat the 90s players as gods, when they were far from it. So do me a favor, go clean out your own closet and try to form an original opinion of your own before you go calling me out for stating my opinions.

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 08:15 AM
No, Davydenko has infinitely more of a chance of winning the USO than of that happening to you. In fact, the theoretical percentage of that happening to you is 0%.

Honestly there is more chance of that happening, in which I would gladley see Davydenko win the US Open if it did happen.

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 08:18 AM
Honestly there is more chance of that happening, in which I would gladley see Davydenko win the US Open if it did happen.

You're going to kidnap Megan Fox and Adriana Lima, is that what you're telling us?

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 08:25 AM
Is that so wrong to say, or do I have to kiss Pete's *** to gain your respect?

11th hour "he was great, too" comments does not erase your negativity toward the man or those who support him. Sorry, it just does not work that way.

And I've said before that I found some S&V tennis to be boring.

You did not say "some" nor did you mean that with the blanket judgement, otherwise, it would have been just as easy to..oh, let me see....post that. Oh well.


I don't kiss GS and GSF's *** like you do...

Flames and unsubstantiated remarks do nothing in the way of helping you.

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 08:33 AM
11th hour "he was great, too" comments does not erase your negativity toward the man or those who support him. Sorry, it just does not work that way.

What do you want me to say then? So essentially, what you are claiming is me saying "Pete is great, one of the top 5 of all time" doesn't prove that I think he was great? Fine then, I'm through talking to you, I don't have anything else to say to someone who obviously wants me to bow at the feet of the tennis god Pete Sampras, yet when I refuse to do anything short of saying I want to have Pete's babies, calls me a phony.

Don't respond to this post, I'm through talking to you. It's obvious the only intention you had in this thread was to start a war of words w/ me. Well, are you happy now? I could care less what you think of what I think, I don't need to say anything more, if you can't take my statements at face value, I have nothing left to say to you and can no longer talk to you.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 08:35 AM
Honestly there is more chance of that happening, in which I would gladley see Davydenko win the US Open if it did happen.



No, there is honestly no chance of that happening. Davydenko is #8 in the world and a former #3 who has won multiple titles and 2 Master Titles. He has shown in the past he can beat anyone except Federer (although there's always a time for a first).




Davydenko has repeat, "an infinitely more likely chance of winning the USO than Adriana Lima and Megan Fox having a threesome with you".




Adriana Lima and Megan Fox also would never waste their time on someone who spends the majority of their time on an internet tennis board sucking up to a guy that doesn't even play professional tennis, and spending the rest of his time bashing Roger Federer, who has wronged you in no way whatsoever. End of argument.

drwood
08-12-2009, 08:41 AM
No, there is honestly no chance of that happening. Davydenko is #8 in the world and a former #3 who has won multiple titles and 2 Master Titles. He has shown in the past he can beat anyone except Federer (although there's always a time for a first).

Davydenko has repeat, "an infinitely more likely chance of winning the USO than Adriana Lima and Megan Fox having a threesome with you".

No, they're both zero. Davydenko is owned by Roddick (5-1) as well.

bolo
08-12-2009, 08:49 AM
In a row? How bout multiple tournaments in a row? I have SEEN Davydenko bomb it in 120-130 consistently for whole tournaments. Sometimes I think you don't even watch tennis matches that don't involve Nadal. Davydenko in years past has usually been in the top 5 of service statistics, and not just because of his ground game either.



Nadal has an average serve. Davydenko has a GOOD serve.

No I am sure it was because of his ground game. Show me some stats. where he is top 5 in aces (top 20 in aces?) or unreturnables and maybe I will change my mind.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 08:52 AM
No I am sure it was because of his ground game. Show me some stats. where he is top 5 in aces (top 20 in aces?) or unreturnables and maybe I will change my mind.



Do realize his year his service statistics are mainly on clay. He has played LESS matches than Nadal this year, and he has 111 aces to 125 (I think, that's what it was last time I checked). And he didn't play any HC events AFIAK.

bolo
08-12-2009, 08:57 AM
Do realize his year his service statistics are mainly on clay. He has played LESS matches than Nadal this year, and he has 111 aces to 125 (I think, that's what it was last time I checked). And he didn't play any HC events AFIAK.

Pick whatever year you want, davydenko is going to be middle of the pack in terms of serve statistics that are not bolstered by his ground game.

Cyan
08-12-2009, 09:25 AM
Nah. Since 1978 when the USO changed to HC it has been won by current #1s, former #1s or eventual #1s. Don't see Davydenko as an eventual #1 at his age......

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 09:27 AM
Pick whatever year you want, davydenko is going to be middle of the pack in terms of serve statistics that are not bolstered by his ground game.



So I guess you discount the fact that Davydenko serves 130 bombs when he zeros in on his serve. I guess that's "average." Ok. That's your opinion.

bolo
08-12-2009, 09:33 AM
So I guess you discount the fact that Davydenko serves 130 bombs when he zeros in on his serve. I guess that's "average." Ok. That's your opinion.

yep that's what the serve stats. tell you. Hits some once in a while but misses a lot more, so overall pretty average.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 09:34 AM
yep that's what the serve stats. tell you. Hits some once in a while but misses a lot more, so overall pretty average.



I wouldn't say once in awhile. He did it for whole tournaments at times. I remember looking at fastest service statistics at some tournaments and I do believe I saw Davydenko up near the top with 138.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 09:36 AM
yep that's what the serve stats. tell you. Hits some once in a while but misses a lot more, so overall pretty average.

It's average on clay where he plays the majority of his matches because he just kicks his first serve in most of the time on that surface. On hard court he'll pretty consistently hit at 120+ and hit them over 130 quite a bit.

bolo
08-12-2009, 09:51 AM
It's average on clay where he plays the majority of his matches because he just kicks his first serve in most of the time on that surface. On hard court he'll pretty consistently hit at 120+ and hit the over 130 quite a bit.

I have seen hit some at that level, but also miss for stretches as well. He's doesn't seem like he is comfortable or consistent enough to keep it up.

Didn't he switch to another racquet and there was a brief point where guys thought he was getting more power. I remember this talk during his last match with federer at the U.S. open. Off the top of my head I would say roddick, federer, murray, ivo, querrey, monfils, kendrick, berdych, guccione, tsonga, isner, chardy, Delpo all have better serves. That already puts him below the top 10.

From previous years would he be top 20 on hard court aces, out of the top 50?

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 09:57 AM
No, there is honestly no chance of that happening. Davydenko is #8 in the world and a former #3 who has won multiple titles and 2 Master Titles. He has shown in the past he can beat anyone except Federer (although there's always a time for a first).




Davydenko has repeat, "an infinitely more likely chance of winning the USO than Adriana Lima and Megan Fox having a threesome with you".




Adriana Lima and Megan Fox also would never waste their time on someone who spends the majority of their time on an internet tennis board sucking up to a guy that doesn't even play professional tennis, and spending the rest of his time bashing Roger Federer, who has wronged you in no way whatsoever. End of argument.

It was meant as a light hearted joke, but for whatever reason you seem to be fishing for an argument.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 09:58 AM
I have seen hit some at that level, but also miss for stretches as well. He's doesn't seem like he is comfortable or consistent enough to keep it up.

Didn't he switch to another racquet and there was a brief point where guys thought he was getting more power. I remember this talk during his last match with federer at the U.S. open. Off the top of my head I would say roddick, federer, murray, ivo, querrey, monfils, kendrick, berdych, guccione, tsonga, isner, chardy, Delpo all have better serves. That already puts him below the top 10.

From previous years would he be top 20 on hard court aces, out of the top 50?

I agree that a lot of guys have better serves but most of the men's tour have great serves. I'd put it at Kiefer/Thomas Johannson level which is still good as they are known for having some of the best serves for their height. It's difficult to attack even if he's not hitting bombs. Also his return of serve is so good that even if his serve goes off he will still be in many matches.

bolo
08-12-2009, 10:02 AM
I agree that a lot of guys have better serves but most of the men's tour have great serves. I'd put it at Kiefer/Thomas Johannson level which is still good as they are known for having some of the best serves for their height. It's difficult to attack even if he's not hitting bombs. Also his return of serve is so good that even if his serve goes off he will still be in many matches.

That's a good comparison breaker. Johansson's serve was always interesting. I will agree to that.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 10:30 AM
A thread 6 pages long about Davydenko. LOL


Come on now!!! Lets let this thread die a slow horrible death. Lets talk about the meaning of life or something. 6 pages dedicated to a journeymaan glorified era filler.

Shaolin
08-12-2009, 10:40 AM
Davy is definitely playing incredible. I saw some of his match against Mathieu and was blown away. He wont win the Open but I could easily see him getting to the QF/SF.

aphex
08-12-2009, 10:53 AM
A thread 6 pages long about Davydenko. LOL


Come on now!!! Lets let this thread die a slow horrible death. Lets talk about the meaning of life or something. 6 pages dedicated to a journeymaan glorified era filler.

thanks for your contribution to this awesome thread:)

(davydenko would crush sampras on clay 0/1/0 :shock:)

Breaker
08-12-2009, 10:54 AM
A thread 6 pages long about Davydenko. LOL


Come on now!!! Lets let this thread die a slow horrible death. Lets talk about the meaning of life or something. 6 pages dedicated to a journeymaan glorified era filler.

People like a fresh secure bald face more than smelly geriatrics like Sampras who have to use fake hair growth just to get back into the crowd at Wimbledon.

I think we're looking at a DelPo/Davydenko final, these two are in great form and will be playing at a high level going into the Open. Murray also has chances but those two are the most likely of course.

zagor
08-12-2009, 10:56 AM
I think a run to the semis is possible,Kolja is in good form right now and reached USO SF before in 2006 and 2007.

namelessone
08-12-2009, 10:57 AM
Davydenko hasn't won a Slam or been in a Slam final because he is,excuse the overused statement,a mental midget.
The guy is one of the best baseliners in the ATP in an era of nothing but baseliners but cannot win crucial points in the big matches.
He is one of the few guys,along with Fed,Djoker,Murray, that can constantly hang with Nadal from the baseline and that is saying something.He hits very hard considering his stickman physique and is good from both sides.
His serve is mediocre but a guy with such good groundstrokes and movement should have had better career results.

I don't think he believes in himself enough.He reminds of David Ferrer who once said something along the lines of "I am the worst tenismen who has reached the top 10",or something like that.

aphex
08-12-2009, 10:58 AM
Honestly there is more chance of that happening, in which I would gladley see Davydenko win the US Open if it did happen.

no. there is not.

i don't think you understand probabilities. davydenko has about a 1/40 chance of winning usopen. you have about 1/40000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000000000

chance of being in the same square kilometer as adriana lima and megan fox, let alone have a threesome with them.

i have calculated the probability of the latter at about 1 in 10^76.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 10:59 AM
People like a fresh secure bald face more than smelly geriatrics like Sampras who have to use fake hair growth just to get back into the crowd at Wimbledon.

Lol
10 char

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:03 AM
People like a fresh secure bald face more than smelly geriatrics like Sampras who have to use fake hair growth just to get back into the crowd at Wimbledon.

I think we're looking at a DelPo/Davydenko final, these two are in great form and will be playing at a high level going into the Open. Murray also has chances but those two are the most likely of course.

No I think people like PROVEN CHAMPIONS that they can get behind or root for!!! Not slamless wonders with no hope of ever winning a slam.


And just the mention of Davydenko reaching a USO final is hillarious.. Dont worry.. Ill revive this thread when the 110 pound wonder is whiped out before the quarterfinals

Blinkism
08-12-2009, 11:04 AM
Davydenko rocks, but I don't think he's going to win the Open.

It would be cool if he did, though.

aphex
08-12-2009, 11:06 AM
No I think people like PROVEN CHAMPIONS that they can get behind or root for!!! Not slamless wonders with no hope of ever winning a slam.


And just the mention of Davydenko reaching a USO final is hillarious.. Dont worry.. Ill revive this thread when the 110 pound wonder is whiped out before the quarterfinals

you're such a gloryhunter! sad...

federerGOAT
08-12-2009, 11:07 AM
thanks for your contribution to this awesome thread:)

(davydenko would crush sampras on clay 0/1/0 :shock:)

Davydenko would crush Sampras even on hardcourts.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:07 AM
you're such a gloryhunter! sad...

If I was a gloryhunter I would have been rooting for Nadal or Fed along time ago. And the truth is Im rooting for Djokovic or Murray to become major players.. What "glory" have they had? 1 slam in between both of them?

Blinkism
08-12-2009, 11:08 AM
GameSampras, what's your beef with Davydenko?

Are you so against the modern era that you'll rag on Davydenko?

C'mon...

On another note, Davydenko would triple bagel Sampras first round at Wimbledon

:)

Breaker
08-12-2009, 11:09 AM
No I think people like PROVEN CHAMPIONS that they can get behind or root for!!! Not slamless wonders with no hope of ever winning a slam.


And just the mention of Davydenko reaching a USO final is hillarious.. Dont worry.. Ill revive this thread when the 110 pound wonder is whiped out before the quarterfinals

OK, so while the US Open is going on and I'm watching Davydenko you can go to Arizona and watch the Outback Senior Tour so you can see these great proven champions in action.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:09 AM
GameSampras, what's your beef with Davydenko?

Are you so against the modern era that you'll rag on Davydenko?

C'mon...

On another note, Davydenko would triple bagel Sampras first round at Wimbledon

:)



I have no beef with him.. But why overrate the guy and sit there and say foolish things like your above goofy comment, of Davy would triple bagel sampras.. or even win a USO.


Where is the proof that Davydenko is going to be making some unreal run at a slam and win it? If he hasnt done it now, he never will

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:10 AM
I have no beef with him.. But why overrate the guy and sit there and say foolish things like your above goofy comment, of Davy would triple bagel sampras.. or even win a USO.



Davydenko would indeed triple bagel Sampras on the clay.

mdjenders
08-12-2009, 11:11 AM
denko's form on the clay in hamburg and umag was pretty scary. if a clay grand slam were held coming up, i would put him as a top 3 favorite for sure. us fast hard court is a whole different animal, and he looked shaky vs. mathieu.

Blinkism
08-12-2009, 11:11 AM
I have no beef with him.. But why overrate the guy and sit there and say foolish things like your above goofy comment, of Davy would triple bagel sampras.. or even win a USO.

I was obviously kidding

but Davydenko is a solid player who has done no one wrong. I wouldn't rate him in the Top 10 of the decade, but he's definitely not a bad players.

Over-rated.. maybe

He's made the US Open semi's before and if the stars can line up, he can win a slam. It's not completely unlikely, especially considering he's in form now and in the top 10.

aphex
08-12-2009, 11:12 AM
If I was a gloryhunter I would have been rooting for Nadal or Fed along time ago. And the truth is Im rooting for Djokovic or Murray to become major players.. What "glory" have they had? 1 slam in between both of them?

because you JUST said that you can only support players who have achieved...

you are not a fan of quality-you are a fan of achievements.

which explains perfectly your infatuation with sampras, since you probably became a fan after his achievements.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:12 AM
Davydenko would indeed triple bagel Sampras on the clay.

LOL.... WOW!!!!!


Bruguera couldnt, Medvedev couldnt, Courier couldnt, Andre couldnt all superior players than Davydenko.. Yet somehow davy could?

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:14 AM
because you JUST said that you can only support players who have achieved...

you are not a fan of quality-you are a fan of achievements.

which explains perfectly your infatuation with sampras, since you probably became a fan after his achievements.



Well then why shouldnt I have became a Nadal or Fed **** since both have achieved so much? Why wouldnt I jump on their bandwagons?


Hell I should be the ultimate Laver or Fed ****. IF what you say is true. They achieved the most

Breaker
08-12-2009, 11:14 AM
denko's form on the clay in hamburg and umag was pretty scary. if a clay grand slam were held coming up, i would put him as a top 3 favorite for sure. us fast hard court is a whole different animal, and he looked shaky vs. mathieu.

That was only his 4th hard court match all year. With a bit more match play he will be one of the men to beat at the Open.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 11:15 AM
No I think people like PROVEN CHAMPIONS that they can get behind or root for!!! Not slamless wonders with no hope of ever winning a slam.

Agreed; it would be different if Davydenko happened to be on the fasttrack of likely USO finalists...just the opposite, players like Davydenko and Blake have "aged out of the system" and were never serious threats to win even one slam at all.


And just the mention of Davydenko reaching a USO final is hillarious.. Dont worry.. Ill revive this thread when the 110 pound wonder is whiped out before the quarterfinals

Well, it will serve as a reminder that certain careers have been ready to be laid to rest for some time.

aphex
08-12-2009, 11:15 AM
Well then why shouldnt I have became a Nadal or Fed **** since both have achieved so much? Why wouldnt I jump on their bandwagons?

because you have already invested too much emotionally on sampras and his records...

tudwell
08-12-2009, 11:16 AM
Davydenko just came off of a months-long injury break to win back-to-back titles. He's in great form. I can't wait for the Open.

bolo
08-12-2009, 11:18 AM
OK, so while the US Open is going on and I'm watching Davydenko you can go to Arizona and watch the Outback Senior Tour so you can see these great proven champions in action.

lol. 10 char. :)

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:20 AM
Agreed; it would be different if Davydenko happened to be on the fasttrack of likely USO finalists...just the opposite, players like Davydenko and Blake have "aged out of the system" and were never serious threats to win even one slam at all.




Well, it will serve as a reminder that certain careers have been ready to be laid to rest for some time.




I think you have some poor interpretations of the facts. Davydenko was unable to defend a large portion of his points early in the season (including his title in Miami, which is worth 1000 points), yet he is ranked 8th in the world currently.



So how has Davydenko aged out of the system again? Or how has his career been laid to rest?

bolo
08-12-2009, 11:21 AM
I was obviously kidding

but Davydenko is a solid player who has done no one wrong. I wouldn't rate him in the Top 10 of the decade, but he's definitely not a bad players.

Over-rated.. maybe

He's made the US Open semi's before and if the stars can line up, he can win a slam. It's not completely unlikely, especially considering he's in form now and in the top 10.

solid player. Has played some memorable matches with federer at the slams. I thinking of an australian from while back, maybe 2005.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:23 AM
solid player. Has played some memorable matches with federer at the slams. I thinking of an australian from while back, maybe 2005.



2006 where Davydenko had the chance to go up 2 sets to 1. I personally think Davydenko is a bit of an underachiever considering he has shown that he is capable of beating everyone (including Federer).

bolo
08-12-2009, 11:25 AM
2006 where Davydenko had the chance to go up 2 sets to 1. I personally think Davydenko is a bit of an underachiever considering he has shown that he is capable of beating everyone (including Federer).

Had some chances to take some more sets at the australian and U.S. open. Could have certainly made things more interesting for federer. Some close misses on set points IIRC.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:30 AM
Had some chances to take some more sets at the australian and U.S. open. Could have certainly made things more interesting for federer. Some close misses on set points IIRC.


The FO 2007 was the worst; Davydenko was leading each set, was serving for the 2nd and the 3rd, and had set points in the 3rd. Biggest choke I have ever seen.

julesb
08-12-2009, 11:35 AM
LOL!!! Looks about right my man.


If we go overrall than Roddick is a multi time slam champ in any other era as well according to them

Yeah because Andy "nothing but a serve" Roddick is such an amazing talent isnt he. :) He would be spanking Sampras, Becker, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon with his readable muscled serve relant on nothing but power, sometimes great/sometimes loopy scoopy forehand, his measley backhand, feeble return game, laughable volleys, and average athleticsm and court coverage. He would also be schooling Sampras and Agassi on hard courts with that skill set. The fact he lost 5 of his 6 matches to Agassi old enough to be his father doesnt matter, those were all fluke and he would be owning a mid 20s Agassi on hard courts anyway. :lol:

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:37 AM
Yeah because Andy "nothing but a serve" Roddick is such an amazing talent isnt he. :) He would be spanking Sampras, Becker, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon with his readable muscled serve relant on nothing but power, sometimes great/sometimes loopy scoopy forehand, his measley backhand, feeble return game, laughable volleys, and average athleticsm and court coverage. He would also be schooling Sampras and Agassi on hard courts with that skill set. The fact he lost 5 of his 6 matches to Agassi old enough to be his father doesnt matter, those were all fluke and he would be owning a mid 20s Agassi on hard courts anyway. :lol:



Monica Seles is the most overrated player in the history of Women's Tennis.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:39 AM
Yeah because Andy "nothing but a serve" Roddick is such an amazing talent isnt he. :) He would be spanking Sampras, Becker, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon with his readable muscled serve relant on nothing but power, sometimes great/sometimes loopy scoopy forehand, his measley backhand, feeble return game, laughable volleys, and average athleticsm and court coverage. He would also be schooling Sampras and Agassi on hard courts with that skill set. The fact he lost 5 of his 6 matches to Agassi old enough to be his father doesnt matter, those were all fluke and he would be owning a mid 20s Agassi on hard courts anyway. :lol:



Wow did Roddick will lose 5 of 6 matches to over the hill mid 30s Andre?


If that doesnt prove something about this era or lack therof nothing does.

aphex
08-12-2009, 11:39 AM
Yeah because Andy "nothing but a serve" Roddick is such an amazing talent isnt he. :) He would be spanking Sampras, Becker, and Ivanisevic at Wimbledon with his readable muscled serve relant on nothing but power, sometimes great/sometimes loopy scoopy forehand, his measley backhand, feeble return game, laughable volleys, and average athleticsm and court coverage. He would also be schooling Sampras and Agassi on hard courts with that skill set. The fact he lost 5 of his 6 matches to Agassi old enough to be his father doesnt matter, those were all fluke and he would be owning a mid 20s Agassi on hard courts anyway. :lol:

not sampras and becker but would beat ivanisevic easily...

aphex
08-12-2009, 11:40 AM
Monica Seles is the most overrated player in the history of Women's Tennis.

everyone knows the true goat is jankovic.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 11:40 AM
LOL!!! Looks about right my man.


If we go overrall than Roddick is a multi time slam champ in any other era as well according to them

Yep only legends won multiple slams in the 90's, like Kafelnikov.

Looking at this Canada draw it will be difficult..winner of Gonzalez/Haas next two guys who are in great form this year.

bolo
08-12-2009, 11:40 AM
The FO 2007 was the worst; Davydenko was leading each set, was serving for the 2nd and the 3rd, and had set points in the 3rd. Biggest choke I have ever seen.

lol. I didn't watch that match. Thank god. :)

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:41 AM
LOL.. Youre right.. Agassi has a 5-1 h2h vs. Roddick.. He whiped him out on hardcourts..

Only win Roddick managed to get was a match on grass.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 11:44 AM
everyone knows the true goat is jankovic.



Pssh, Margret Court would handle Jankovic and Seles while covering doubles alleys.

tudwell
08-12-2009, 11:44 AM
Way to derail the thread, julesb. Why you haven't been banned yet, I've no clue.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 11:47 AM
Yep only legends won multiple slams in the 90's, like Kafelnikov.

Looking at this Canada draw it will be difficult..winner of Gonzalez/Haas next two guys who are in great form this year.

Haas? The 90s era holdover?

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 11:48 AM
So how has Davydenko aged out of the system again? Or how has his career been laid to rest?
.

You misunderstand; "aged out" means as a 28 yr old player who has failed to win so far, he's more than likely over and done with where it counts, particularly since his best slam results are two years in the past (semis of the '07 FO/USO), while his two previous slam appearances resulted in 2 straight set losses, and were not all that competitive. Age, injury and the inability to realistically defeat likely USO finals opponent Federer (still hungry for slams/history) does not sound like a recipe for late-stage slam success.

Ambivalent
08-12-2009, 11:50 AM
"Great Serve"

NO.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 11:51 AM
Haas? The 90s era holdover?

If you consider someone who was 20 in '99 a holdover then yes. Didn't prepubescent pimple faced Haas beat prime Agassi by the way??

Gonzalez/Haas will be a good match have to favour Gonzo though, great third round match with Davy either way.

flying24
08-12-2009, 12:05 PM
If you consider someone who was 20 in '99 a holdover then yes. Didn't prepubescent pimple faced Haas beat prime Agassi by the way??

You forget Agassi was in yet another "slump". That is how it is always is with Agassi, either in a slump (especialy when losing matches to teenaged baby Haas, Safin, Hewitt, the so called clowns of the 2000s) or was too old. His abilities are based on a mythical extended prime which never existed.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 12:27 PM
You forget Agassi was in yet another "slump". That is how it is always is with Agassi, either in a slump (especialy when losing matches to teenaged baby Haas, Safin, Hewitt, the so called clowns of the 2000s) or was too old. His abilities are based on a mythical extended prime which never existed.

Exactly, somehow being a challenger level player coming back to number 6 proves he is in his prime more than winning 3 slams in the early 2000's -- winning 5/8 slams between '99 and '03.

When Davydenko wins the US Open he will immediately be above 90's legends like Korda and Krajicek who managed to get slams.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 12:36 PM
.

You misunderstand; "aged out" means as a 28 yr old player who has failed to win so far, he's more than likely over and done with where it counts, particularly since his best slam results are two years in the past (semis of the '07 FO/USO), while his two previous slam appearances resulted in 2 straight set losses, and were not all that competitive. Age, injury and the inability to realistically defeat likely USO finals opponent Federer (still hungry for slams/history) does not sound like a recipe for late-stage slam success.


Not all that competitive? If Davydenko choked bigger than Medvedev did against Agassi. In two encounters against Federer, Davydenko held the upper hand throughout most of the match and ended up losing because of his incredible mental weakness.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 12:37 PM
Exactly, somehow being a challenger level player coming back to number 6 proves he is in his prime more than winning 3 slams in the early 2000's -- winning 5/8 slams between '99 and '03.

When Davydenko wins the US Open he will immediately be above 90's legends like Korda and Krajicek who managed to get slams.


He'll be an even bigger legend because he did it in a stacked field full of legendary talents like Djokovic, Murray, Nadal, and Federer.

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 02:15 PM
Davydenko would indeed triple bagel Sampras on the clay.

Ha! Sampras could easily beat Davydenko on clay after all he has beaten better players on clay.

thejoe
08-12-2009, 02:16 PM
Ha! Sampras could easily beat Davydenko on clay after all he has beaten better players on clay.

He's beaten bigger names at very indifferent times of their careers.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:21 PM
He's beaten bigger names at very indifferent times of their careers.

It doesnt matter. He still beat them. Who has Davydenko beaten on clay. The overrated Guillermo Loseria once. Anyone else.

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 02:24 PM
It doesnt matter. He still beat them. Who has Davydenko beaten on clay. The overrated Guillermo Loseria once. Anyone else.

Davy came closer to beating the likes of Nadal and Federer on clay than Pete could ever dream of.

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 02:24 PM
It doesnt matter. He still beat them. Who has Davydenko beaten on clay. The overrated Guillermo Loseria once. Anyone else.
Do you really think it's more impressive to beat a 30 year old Nadal than to get a peak Nadal on the verge of defeat?

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:30 PM
Davy came closer to beating the likes of Nadal and Federer on clay than Pete could ever dream of.

Close doesnt count for anything. Did you credit Sabatini, Clijsters, and Novotna in the least for all the times they were so close to winning additional majors in our debate over the current womens field vs past ones. No of course not, the same applies here. Davydenko did not beat Nadal or Federer on clay, coming close means nothing. Anyway I dont recall him coming close to beating Federer on clay. Losing a match in straight sets you could have won in straight sets if you didnt choke at the end of each set isnt coming close, it is just an even more epic fail.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:31 PM
Do you really think it's more impressive to beat a 30 year old Nadal than to get a peak Nadal on the verge of defeat?

As far as I know 2016 hasnt happened yet so nobody has played or beaten a 30 year old Nadal. What I do know the overrated Guillermo Loseria couldnt even beat an 18 year old Nadal in two attempts on clay, nor beat Federer on clay, and he constitutes Davydenko's one biggest ever clay court win.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 02:32 PM
Ha! Sampras could easily beat Davydenko on clay after all he has beaten better players on clay.


I'm sorry, Sampras stands very little chance of beating the workhorse Davydenko, especailly considering Sampras is notorious for sucking on clay.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:34 PM
I'm sorry, Sampras stands very little chance of beating the workhorse Davydenko, especailly considering Sampras is notorious for sucking on clay.

So how did he beat workhorses with slam trophies like Muster, Courier, and Bruguera on clay.

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 02:34 PM
I'm sorry, Sampras stands very little chance of beating the workhorse Davydenko, especailly considering Sampras is notorious for sucking on clay.

Courier wasn't a workhorse? Muster? Bruguera? Plus all those had game to back their workrate, Courier has one of the best forehands of the open era. Muster and Bruguera both had fine forehands as well.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
08-12-2009, 02:35 PM
Ha! Sampras could easily beat Davydenko on clay after all he has beaten better players on clay.
I agree, Sampras would win 7/10 on clay vs Davydenko

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 02:36 PM
So how did he beat workhorses with slam trophies like Muster, Courier, and Bruguera on clay.



During years where they all but essentially sucked? Come on, even you know that Sampras caught them during years they were not playing well.



Let's not get into a debate here about Sampras' resume on clay, because we all know Fabrice Santoro who owned Sampras on clay was a massive giant during the 90s right?

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 02:39 PM
As far as I know 2016 hasnt happened yet so nobody has played or beaten a 30 year old Nadal. What I do know the overrated Guillermo Loseria couldnt even beat an 18 year old Nadal in two attempts on clay, nor beat Federer on clay, and he constitutes Davydenko's one biggest ever clay court win.
The Nadal-Coria match is one of the best clay court matches of the last 20 years.

Coria was a genius on clay, but with a court positioning like his you'd need to be taller to handle Nadal's high bouncing balls. He wasn't and lost a close and extremly high quality match, it happens.

Stating that Sampras' wins over Bruguera and Muster (check their clay record those years) are more impressive than some of Davydenko's performances on clay is laughable.

akv89
08-12-2009, 02:39 PM
As far as I know 2016 hasnt happened yet so nobody has played or beaten a 30 year old Nadal. What I do know the overrated Guillermo Loseria couldnt even beat an 18 year old Nadal in two attempts on clay, nor beat Federer on clay, and he constitutes Davydenko's one biggest ever clay court win.

Are you trying to argue that Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko? Seriously?

akv89
08-12-2009, 02:41 PM
So how did he beat workhorses with slam trophies like Muster, Courier, and Bruguera on clay.

Isn't it obvious. Weak clay court field :p

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:44 PM
The Nadal-Coria match is one of the best clay court matches of the last 20 years.

Coria was a genius on clay, but with a court positioning like his you'd need to be taller to handle Nadal's high bouncing balls. He wasn't and lost a close and extremly high quality match, it happens.

Stating that Sampras' wins over Bruguera and Muster (check their clay record that year) are more impressive than some of Davydenko's performances on clay is laughable.

Coria is an overhyped insignifcant. Yeah he has some nice touch and feel, but he is a lightweight. NO power at all, lacks physical strength, lacks endurance, mental midget under pressure, nothing serve, average forehand. 2005 was pre-prime Nadal even on clay, everyone knows it, and like I said almost doesnt count for anything. Even in his matches with Nadal on clay it was embarassing to watch Coria constrcut some beautiful point then have the whole open court and not be able to put the ball away since he doesnt have enough power to get the past Nadal even with a whole open court, so having to resort to drop shot attempts (usually failures) since he doesnt even have the kill power to hit a drive winner with the whole court opened up. Coria was dominated by pre-prime Federer on clay in 2004 when they played, the same Federer who was soon to be spanked at the French by hip cripped Kuerten. Prime Ferrero beat the snot out of Coria on clay when they played. In Coria's own prime years he lost to Martin Verkook or something in a French Open semifinal, Gaudio in that historic joke of a French Open final, and that new god Nikolay Davydenko. Speaking of big wins, what is Coria's biggest ever wins at the French or on clay. Oh yeah he beat a 33 year old Agassi once at the French, and the commentators were even surprised at that win, LOL, and he beat a washed up Moya a couple of times. What a legend.

fedtastic
08-12-2009, 02:50 PM
Naldbandian has more chance of winning the Open than Davydenko.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 02:51 PM
Are you trying to argue that Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko? Seriously?

Absolutely Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko. If you want a bone then prime Davydenko is better than 97-2002 Sampras on clay (when Sampras pretty much gave up on clay), but 92-96 Sampras on clay would beat any Davydenko on clay most of the time. Here are Sampras's achievements on clay:

-Rome title. The 2nd biggest title available on clay, one even Federer doesnt have on clay.

-Davis Cup title. Pete single handidly gave the U.S the 95 Davis Cup final over Russia by gutting out a tough 5 set win over clay court specialist Chesnokov (Chesnokov is also probably superior to Davydenko on clay btw), helping in the doubles win, then spanking next years French Open Champion and that years French Open semifinalist Kafelnikov in the deciding rubber.

-French Open semifinals in 1996 by beating 2 time French Open Champions Bruguera and Courier to get there. Washed up, not any good around then, I can already see the responses. How to explain Bruguera making the final of the French the next year, and Courier being ranked in the top 10 at the time.


When Davydenko beats someone better than Guillermo Loseria at the French or on clay in general or wins a Masters title on clay, then we can talk.

Cesc Fabregas
08-12-2009, 02:56 PM
Absolutely Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko. If you want a bone then prime Davydenko is better than 97-2002 Sampras on clay (when Sampras pretty much gave up on clay), but 92-96 Sampras on clay would beat any Davydenko on clay most of the time. Here are Sampras's achievements on clay:

-Rome title. The 2nd biggest title available on clay, one even Federer doesnt have on clay.

-Davis Cup title. Pete single handidly gave the U.S the 95 Davis Cup final over Russia by gutting out a tough 5 set win over clay court specialist Chesnokov (Chesnokov is also probably superior to Davydenko on clay btw), helping in the doubles win, then spanking next years French Open Champion and that years French Open semifinalist Kafelnikov in the deciding rubber.

-French Open semifinals in 1996 by beating 2 time French Open Champions Bruguera and Courier to get there. Washed up, not any good around then, I can already see the responses. How to explain Bruguera making the final of the French the next year, and Courier being ranked in the top 10 at the time.


When Davydenko beats someone better than Guillermo Loseria at the French or on clay in general or wins a Masters title on clay, then we can talk.


Totally agree. Great post.

dropshot winner
08-12-2009, 02:58 PM
Coria is an overhyped insignifcant. Yeah he has some nice touch and feel, but he is a lightweight. NO power at all, lacks physical strength, lacks endurance, mental midget under pressure, nothing serve, average forehand. 2005 was pre-prime Nadal even on clay, everyone knows it, and like I said almost doesnt count for anything. Even in his matches with Nadal on clay it was embarassing to watch Coria constrcut some beautiful point then have the whole open court and not be able to put the ball away since he doesnt have enough power to get the past Nadal even with a whole open court, so having to resort to drop shot attempts (usually failures) since he doesnt even have the kill power to hit a drive winner with the whole court opened up. Coria was dominated by pre-prime Federer on clay in 2004 when they played, the same Federer who was soon to be spanked at the French by hip cripped Kuerten. Prime Ferrero beat the snot out of Coria on clay when they played. In Coria's own prime years he lost to Martin Verkook or something in a French Open semifinal, Gaudio in that historic joke of a French Open final, and that new god Nikolay Davydenko. Speaking of big wins, what is Coria's biggest ever wins at the French or on clay. Oh yeah he beat a 33 year old Agassi once at the French, and the commentators were even surprised at that win, LOL, and he beat a washed up Moya a couple of times. What a legend.
I'm not saying that Coria's a legend, but he was a very good clay courter for a few seasons.

And Kuerten played a good match against Federer in 2004, Federer had a bad day and that's it. There's no shame to lose to a three time FO champion.

Keep in mind that Nalbandian had also severe hip problems when he outplayed Nadal for almost 2 sets in Indian Wells.

If you want you can keep hyping some of Sampras wins on clay, fine, but keep in mind that even Rusdeksi could beat some of those out-of form "clay gods".
Sampras was an AMAZING player on grass, indoor and hardcourt, but he was mediocre on clay, that's not an insult, that's just how it is.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 03:10 PM
Not all that competitive?

I was talking about his two recent slam losses at the FO (QF, 1-6,3-6,1-6) & Wimbledon (3rd round, 2-6,3-6,2-6), where he was quite simply handled and no competition at all, which goes back to the fact he's had increasingly poor slam results than his career best two years ago. That, plus age takes him out of any serious conversation regarding his just reaching the finals of the USO--nevermind any wild notions of his chances of winning.

akv89
08-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Absolutely Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko. If you want a bone then prime Davydenko is better than 97-2002 Sampras on clay (when Sampras pretty much gave up on clay), but 92-96 Sampras on clay would beat any Davydenko on clay most of the time. Here are Sampras's achievements on clay:

-Rome title. The 2nd biggest title available on clay, one even Federer doesnt have on clay.

-Davis Cup title. Pete single handidly gave the U.S the 95 Davis Cup final over Russia by gutting out a tough 5 set win over clay court specialist Chesnokov (Chesnokov is also probably superior to Davydenko on clay btw), helping in the doubles win, then spanking next years French Open Champion and that years French Open semifinalist Kafelnikov in the deciding rubber.

-French Open semifinals in 1996 by beating 2 time French Open Champions Bruguera and Courier to get there. Washed up, not any good around then, I can already see the responses. How to explain Bruguera making the final of the French the next year, and Courier being ranked in the top 10 at the time.


When Davydenko beats someone better than Guillermo Loseria at the French or on clay in general or wins a Masters title on clay, then we can talk.

Chesnokov? He wasn't even ranked in the top 30 at any point in '95. And if 92-96 was prime Sampras on clay, then how do you explain the debacle in the 95 French when Sampras lost in the 1st round to Schaller?

Courier was no good 96 and it wasn't really an accomplishment to beat him that year. Sampras wasn't the only guy to do it. Bruguera wasn't in great form either. I don't think either one won a single title on any surface that year. You probably expected that, but it doesn't make it any less true. Beating Courier or Bruguera in '96 is hardly an accomplishment worthy of clay court greatness.

It's also funny how you call all of Sampras' wins of Courier, Bruguera, or Muster when they were not in their primes legitimate, but discredit Coria's wins over Agassi or Moya. You'd probably do the same to Davydenko's wins over Ferrero, Moya, Gaudio, etc

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 03:20 PM
Oh god, are they really trying to push Sampras as a great clay courter yet again? Do we really have to revisit this thread, and show how much of a mockery Pete's CC resume is among GOAT candidates?

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=277148&highlight=Pete+Sampras+rank+clay

TheFifthSet
08-12-2009, 03:21 PM
Absolutely Sampras is a better clay courter than Davydenko. If you want a bone then prime Davydenko is better than 97-2002 Sampras on clay (when Sampras pretty much gave up on clay), but 92-96 Sampras on clay would beat any Davydenko on clay most of the time. Here are Sampras's achievements on clay:

-Rome title. The 2nd biggest title available on clay, one even Federer doesnt have on clay.

-Davis Cup title. Pete single handidly gave the U.S the 95 Davis Cup final over Russia by gutting out a tough 5 set win over clay court specialist Chesnokov (Chesnokov is also probably superior to Davydenko on clay btw), helping in the doubles win, then spanking next years French Open Champion and that years French Open semifinalist Kafelnikov in the deciding rubber.

-French Open semifinals in 1996 by beating 2 time French Open Champions Bruguera and Courier to get there. Washed up, not any good around then, I can already see the responses. How to explain Bruguera making the final of the French the next year, and Courier being ranked in the top 10 at the time.


When Davydenko beats someone better than Guillermo Loseria at the French or on clay in general or wins a Masters title on clay, then we can talk.


Here's a case for Davydenko;

- 9 clay titles vs 3 for Sampras

- Came an inch from beating Nadal in '07 on clay, something I don't see Sampras doing very often

- Davydenko in the French Open beat Canas, Coria, Moya, Costa, Nalbandian, Robredo, Safin, Verdasco, etc. Say what you want, but both Bruguera and Courier were out of form the year that Sampras beat them. Courier ended the year out of the top 20, and hadn't won a claycourt tournament in 3 years. And he'd never do well at the French again. Saying that Bruguera did well next year is moot, that's like saying Agassi was good in 1997-1998 because he won two slams in 1999. Bruguera barely won more claycourt matches than he lost that year.

- Sampras was very impressive in Rome 1994, but he beat only one top 15 player, and that was Boris Becker (No. 13) who had never won a claycourt tournament.

Davis Cup is a very valid point, but otherwise . . . . it's tough to argue that Sampras is better than Davydenko on clay.

BTW, I like what you did there, Guillermo Loseria, catchy. I like how it ryhmes PERFECTLY. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Cori . . . .

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Here's a case for Davydenko;

- 9 clay titles vs 3 for Sampras

- Came an inch from beating Nadal in '07 on clay, something I don't see Sampras doing very often

- Davydenko in the French Open beat Canas, Coria, Moya, Costa, Nalbandian, Robredo, Safin, Verdasco, etc. Say what you want, but both Bruguera and Courier were out of form the year that Sampras beat them. Courier ended the year out of the top 20, and hadn't won a claycourt tournament in 3 years. And he'd never do well at the French again. Saying that Bruguera did well is moot, that's like saying Agassi was good in 1997-1998 because he won two slams in 1999. Bruguera barely won more claycourt matches than he lost that year.

- Sampras was very impressive in Rome 1994, but he beat only one top 15 player, and that was Boris Becker (No. 13) who had never won a claycourt tournament.

Davis Cup is a very valid point, but otherwise . . . . it's tough to argue that Sampras is better than Davydenko on clay.

BTW, I like what you did there, Guillermo Loseria, catchy. I like how it ryhmes PERFECTLY Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Coria. Loseria. Cori . . . .

Well said. BTW, you obviously didn't catch the Davystinko line that GameSampras dropped earlier on in the thread. THAT was a classic...:D

TheFifthSet
08-12-2009, 03:27 PM
Well said. BTW, you obviously didn't catch the Davystinko line that GameSampras dropped earlier on in the thread. THAT was a classic...:D


Hahaha . . . . yeah I did, lol. JeMar's comment in response made me die of laughter. :)

jamesblakefan#1
08-12-2009, 03:34 PM
Hahaha . . . . yeah I did, lol. JeMar's comment in response made me die of laughter. :)

Somewhere, in some town, on some kitchen table, sits a paper with the names "Davyjerko," "Davygayko," "Davygecko," and and several other failed attempts struck through with a line. At the bottom of the page, underneath a coffee stain and little pink hearts, you will find the scribbled word, "Davystinko," circled with a periwinkle highlighter.

Classic. Epic.

federerGOAT
08-12-2009, 03:39 PM
Sampras wouldn't even beat Davydenko on hardcourts. The likes of Federer and Nadal are heads and shoulders above anyone Sampras faced. If Davydenko played in the 90s, he'd be multiple slam winner.

TheFifthSet
08-12-2009, 03:45 PM
Classic. Epic.


That post is GOAT material.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 03:49 PM
Sampras wouldn't even beat Davydenko on hardcourts. The likes of Federer and Nadal are heads and shoulders above anyone Sampras faced. If Davydenko played in the 90s, he'd be multiple slam winner.


Davydenko is not even a contender in his own era, let alone one with several potent slam winners. He's fading by the year which makes the theoy behind the OP one not based on an honest assessment of ND's ever-crumbling value as a player.

NamRanger
08-12-2009, 03:51 PM
Davydenko is not even a contender in his own era, let alone one with several potent slam winners. He's fading by the year which makes the theoy behind the OP one not based on an honest assessment of ND's ever-crumbling value as a player.



In the event that Nikolay Davydenko does indeed wins the US Open by some miraculous feat (even if everyone gets upset early somehow) than I'd love to see what your response would be.


I don't see how he was crumbling when he was still in the top 5 last year, and only dropped because he couldn't defend his points from the first half of the season.

THUNDERVOLLEY
08-12-2009, 04:01 PM
In the event that Nikolay Davydenko does indeed wins the US Open by some miraculous feat (even if everyone gets upset early somehow) than I'd love to see what your response would be.

I'll be happy to say I was incorrect about the state of his present day career, but I know Davydenko will not prove his in-thread critics wrong.


I don't see how he was crumbling when he was still in the top 5 last year, and only dropped because he couldn't defend his points from the first half of the season.

If one fails to match the slam rounds reached in earlier years (with the recent slam losses especially non-competitive), and is already at an age usually considered part of the twilight years for pros, then it is not a stretch to think his player value is crumbling.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 04:44 PM
Sampras wouldn't even beat Davydenko on hardcourts. The likes of Federer and Nadal are heads and shoulders above anyone Sampras faced. If Davydenko played in the 90s, he'd be multiple slam winner.

Thanks for the laughs. I havent read anything this funny in a long time.

grafselesfan
08-12-2009, 04:44 PM
Davydenko is not even a contender in his own era, let alone one with several potent slam winners.

Bingo, we have a winner!!

Gaudio2004
08-12-2009, 04:55 PM
Will lose before the QF. 10-0 record against Federer.

egn
08-12-2009, 04:59 PM
LOL.. Youre right.. Agassi has a 5-1 h2h vs. Roddick.. He whiped him out on hardcourts..

Only win Roddick managed to get was a match on grass.

Heh kind of like oh the agassi lendl head to head when agassi at 19 could not score a win against 29 year old lendl to save his life and struggled to beat a 32 year old Lendl...

What about how well 19 year old Agassi did against 30 year old McEnroe..

Hell Agassi could not even beat a 30 year old journeyman Andres Gomez and has a losing record against the clay court journeyman who at his best couldn't find his way into a semi at the French Open yet alone the final...

So please before you proclaim this era weak because Roddick has a losing record against Agassi don't make me ruin your 1990s..


Read year end number 1 Jim Courier two time Aussie and French open winner had a 0-4 record against Lendl, never winning a set and never being able to get him to a tiebreak..his best set against him was a 6-4.

Goran was 1-5 vs Lendl and his only win came in Lendl retiring due to injury on grass after not being able to win a tiebreak against Lendl.

Many players have losing records against greats from previous eras. Because greats can hold out a long time.

federerGOAT
08-12-2009, 07:08 PM
Davydenko is not even a contender in his own era, let alone one with several potent slam winners. He's fading by the year which makes the theoy behind the OP one not based on an honest assessment of ND's ever-crumbling value as a player.

Thatt's because the field today is much stronger and deeper compared to the 90s. Davydenko would have given clowns like Muster, Courier, Chang, and Martin the smack down. He would have also handed Sampras serious beatings on clay and hardcourt.

This is a testament to the greatness of Federer winning 15 slams in an extremely strong era.

julesb
08-12-2009, 07:21 PM
Thatt's because the field today is much stronger and deeper compared to the 90s. Davydenko would have given clowns like Muster, Courier, Chang, and Martin the smack down. He would have also handed Sampras serious beatings on clay and hardcourt.

This is a testament to the greatness of Federer winning 15 slams in an extremely strong era.

How do you think Kafelnikov and Davydenko compare?

msc886
08-12-2009, 07:24 PM
Davydenko? Win a slam? Much less a hardcourt slam? Keep dreaming..

Ive never seen such a bunch of people put so much stock in a bunch of LOSERS like Roddick and Davy.


I mean sure.. Lightning can strike ( see Roddicks USO win in 03 which was even questionable in itself) .. But if it hasnt already, doubtful it will twice at least

Before you go calling players like Davydenko and roddick losers, why don't you go and prove that you're better.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 09:40 PM
Will lose before the QF. 10-0 record against Federer.

Fortunately for him (Federer) he is top 8 so at worst he wouldn't play Davydenko until the quarters to get the first loss.

GameSampras
08-12-2009, 09:47 PM
92-96 I would give the edge to sampras half if not most of the time of Davydenko without a doubt..

Sampras from 92-94 made all quarterfinals runs and eventually went out to the superior clay court player than Davydenko. 96 Sampras took out both Bruguera and Courier.. Yea yea passed their prime.. Blah blah.. Just the fact Pete took both out back to back regardless is a big achievement. I dont think Davy could and I will still probably take them both on clay even passed their prime over Davydenko any day.

Breaker
08-12-2009, 10:01 PM
92-96 I would give the edge to sampras half if not most of the time of Davydenko without a doubt..

Sampras from 92-94 made all quarterfinals runs and eventually went out to the superior clay court player than Davydenko. 96 Sampras took out both Bruguera and Courier.. Yea yea passed their prime.. Blah blah.. Just the fact Pete took both out back to back regardless is a big achievement. I dont think Davy could and I will still probably take them both on clay even passed their prime over Davydenko any day.

Yeah two guys with average at best backhands would take him any day even past their primes, kind of like how RG champions Moya, Costa, Ferrero did..oh woops no they didn't :oops:.

Don't worry, if Davydenko decides to skip the US Open in favour of the senior tour I'm sure we'd find out.

TheFifthSet
08-13-2009, 03:09 AM
92-96 I would give the edge to sampras half if not most of the time of Davydenko without a doubt..

Sampras from 92-94 made all quarterfinals runs and eventually went out to the superior clay court player than Davydenko. 96 Sampras took out both Bruguera and Courier.. Yea yea passed their prime.. Blah blah.. Just the fact Pete took both out back to back regardless is a big achievement. I dont think Davy could and I will still probably take them both on clay even passed their prime over Davydenko any day.

Davyedenko from 2005-2007 made 2 Semi's and 1 QF. And he made the QF this year. Courier hadn't a won a claycourt title since '93. And won only one title that year. For the next 3 years, he would be eliminated in the 2nd round once and 1st round twice.

Bruguera was 13-9 on clay that year. He was terrible in 1996. It's like saying that taking out Agassi in 1997 was a huge achievment, even though he was 12-12.

Daydenko at RG beat Coria, Costa, Moya, Robredo, Canas, Nalbandian, Verdasco, Haas, Gaston Gaudio, etc. etc.

Breaker
08-13-2009, 03:13 PM
Davyedenko from 2005-2007 made 2 Semi's and 1 QF. And he made the QF this year. Courier hadn't a won a claycourt title since '93. And won only one title that year. For the next 3 years, he would be eliminated in the 2nd round once and 1st round twice.

Bruguera was 13-9 on clay that year. He was terrible in 1996. It's like saying that taking out Agassi in 1997 was a huge achievment, even though he was 12-12.

Daydenko at RG beat Coria, Costa, Moya, Robredo, Canas, Nalbandian, Verdasco, Haas, Gaston Gaudio, etc. etc.

Shh, everyone knows opinions >>>> facts.

The fact is Davy is on a tear and will win the US Open :)

NamRanger
08-13-2009, 03:16 PM
Shh, everyone knows opinions >>>> facts.

The fact is Davy is on a tear and will win the US Open :)


He just beat Gonzalez; Davydenko is the new GOAT.

Breaker
08-13-2009, 03:22 PM
^^ There was a camera following Murray around that showed him ******* his pants the second Davy had match point, everyone else in the top half had the same reaction.

Federer was even caught in practice saying he might tank tonight to avoid the prospect of his quarterfinal opponent retiring and having to play the master in the semis.

CyBorg
08-13-2009, 05:46 PM
I love Davydenko and he's a really excellent player, but he has two glaring weaknesses.

He doesn't have good hands around the net. I can see he's been working on his volleys and they're more effective now. Ugly but mostly effective. But guys like Murray out there are far better at coming in and hitting a smash or putting away a tough half-volley stroke. Davydenko still looks nervous when he has to do this and it will cost him in a big match.

Secondly, I can see that his first serve has improved a lot. It's actually quite decent. He's holding serve out there. But the second serve is still getting hammered. So when he's out there missing with the first he's vulnerable - especially against the really elite returners.

NamRanger
08-13-2009, 05:48 PM
I love Davydenko and he's a really excellent player, but he has two glaring weaknesses.

He doesn't have good hands around the net. I can see he's been working on his volleys and they're more effective now. Ugly but mostly effective. But guys like Murray out there are far better at coming in and hitting a smash or putting away a tough half-volley stroke. Davydenko still looks nervous when he has to do this and it will cost him in a big match.

Secondly, I can see that his first serve has improved a lot. It's actually quite decent. He's holding serve out there. But the second serve is still getting hammered. So when he's out there missing with the first he's vulnerable - especially against the really elite returners.



His first serve was always good, but indeed his second serve is a weakness, as well as his craptacular hands.

Breaker
08-13-2009, 08:56 PM
I love Davydenko and he's a really excellent player, but he has two glaring weaknesses.

He doesn't have good hands around the net. I can see he's been working on his volleys and they're more effective now. Ugly but mostly effective. But guys like Murray out there are far better at coming in and hitting a smash or putting away a tough half-volley stroke. Davydenko still looks nervous when he has to do this and it will cost him in a big match.

Secondly, I can see that his first serve has improved a lot. It's actually quite decent. He's holding serve out there. But the second serve is still getting hammered. So when he's out there missing with the first he's vulnerable - especially against the really elite returners.

Agreed about the ugly volleys, particularly when a heavy paced ball comes and he keeps two hands on the racket, still has a high percentage of points won at net in his matches. The odd thing is he seems to come into net more than most of the top 10 and players on average due to his penetrating shots on both wings. I'd say on average only Tsonga, Roddick, and maybe Gonzalez go into net more than he does, where he'll often reach 15-20 approaches in a 3 set match.

His second serve is average yeah but there aren't many guys who really destroy second serves consistently these days. I can think of Murray, Hewitt, prime Blake, Nalbandian, Davydenko himself, and very few others who can do that - so it's not too big a weakness (look at Murray, his second serve is probably even worse but he is one of the top 10 in 2nd serve points won.

Just checked and his stats on second serve are 53% won, which is only 4% off the best.

grafselesfan
08-13-2009, 09:24 PM
Now with a big 4 or 5 on top he would probably need 3 big wins in a row to win a slam. Unfortunately I cant recall even 1 big win the guy has had yet in a slam. No beating Tommy Haas or a lower ranked David Nalbandian are not big wins for someone who has been in the top 5 for years now (until this years injury).

egn
08-13-2009, 10:09 PM
Now with a big 4 or 5 on top he would probably need 3 big wins in a row to win a slam. Unfortunately I cant recall even 1 big win the guy has had yet in a slam. No beating Tommy Haas or a lower ranked David Nalbandian are not big wins for someone who has been in the top 5 for years now (until this years injury).

True I agree Davydenko lacks a big win but he has some impressive ones. In 2005 he took out Guillermo Coria who was at the moment most figuring cakewalking his way to his second final. Coria was no doubt in 2005 one of the top clay court players. He was the only one who as able to challenege Nadal taking him to a long five set battle in Rome. As much as you like to trash Coria he was a top contendor at the time. He had been in 6 clay court master series finals over the past 3 seasons and was looking for another deep season. Coria was still actually playing strong at the moment. Sure Coria is no five time slam winner, but Coria was the favorite for the match and nobody expected Davydenko to make it past him.

However I agree that is a huge stretch...but Davydenko has had a bunch of strong wins. However if he had big wins he probably would have a slam by now..so I guess not having big wins relates to not having a slam. Since as he was high enough to stay in the top so he is to high in the ranks to run into anyone. He beats tons of the other top players of his era he just has not been able to tackle Fed..and never seems ot get on the other side of the draw. 2006 Australian Open or hell even the US Open that year I think he could have made the final on the other side. Sure him beating Roddick is a stretch considering how good of a season ROddick had going in and how poor Davy was, but those are all ifs. Davy however has been good for what he is and hell I would kill to have a career like him.

Breaker
08-15-2009, 09:22 AM
How does everyone feel about that tank job against Murray? I think it's clear that at this stage in his career he will care more about slams so any losses he has in 3 set tournaments don't really matter.

carlos djackal
08-15-2009, 09:48 AM
There's a bigger chance of Davydenko winning a slam than Pete winning one (you know.. 0%) currently.


LOL.............

fps
08-15-2009, 10:41 AM
i am convinced davydenko will not win the US Open. while i love his game at its best, with his metronomic hitting and damaging backhand angles, he lacks weapons and still isn't fully fit and firing.

Breaker
09-14-2009, 08:39 PM
People like a fresh secure bald face more than smelly geriatrics like Sampras who have to use fake hair growth just to get back into the crowd at Wimbledon.

I think we're looking at a DelPo/Davydenko final, these two are in great form and will be playing at a high level going into the Open. Murray also has chances but those two are the most likely of course.

Looks like this thread was genius after all.

Davydenko was de facto finalist since he didn't actually lose 3 sets at this event. With Del Po facing a much weaker opponent in the final he was always coming out the victor.

Hail this thread and anyone who agreed with Davydenko winning also gets to share in the glory of Del Po's win.

ubermeyer
09-14-2009, 08:41 PM
Forehand like a rocket
One of the top 5 backhands in the world.
Great serve
Some of the best speed and footwork on the tour
Good transition game behind his groundstrokes.

Great serve???

IvanisevicServe
09-14-2009, 08:53 PM
Davydenko's serve was always his big weakness.

He does everything else really well. Might be the cleanest hitter around and has great foot speed. Excellent return of serve.

Knightmace
09-14-2009, 09:22 PM
Mentality=GOAT

The-Champ
09-14-2009, 09:24 PM
the GOAT of all Smirnoff endorsers.

Breaker
10-18-2009, 07:25 AM
Davystinko to win Aussie Open - fact.

Turning Pro
10-18-2009, 08:02 AM
Nah isn't it Hewitt's year?

Cyan
10-18-2009, 08:57 AM
Davystinko to win Aussie Open - fact.

He can't beat Fed hence he can't win a slam.

THUNDERVOLLEY
10-18-2009, 09:13 AM
I am convinced, Davydenko to win US Open

Get out of the prediction business.

abmk
10-18-2009, 09:17 AM
Davydenko has a great serve ? LOL !

NamRanger
10-18-2009, 09:17 AM
Davydenko has a great serve ? LOL !


He does when he bombs it in, which is once every blue moon.

dincuss
10-18-2009, 09:20 AM
LOL, I have no idea why but I laughed so hard at this.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=280636

This might explain.

Boing-Flip
10-18-2009, 09:53 AM
im sorry but just because he plays one good tournement doesnt mean that he will win a slam. he wont perform like that again

dropshot winner
10-18-2009, 11:44 PM
im sorry but just because he plays one good tournement doesnt mean that he will win a slam. he wont perform like that again
I guess you haven't watched him this year?

He has played at that level or better multiple times in 09, he hasn't even played the full season, he was injured at the beginning at got reinjured right after getting back on track.

jamesblakefan#1
10-18-2009, 11:56 PM
I guess you haven't watched him this year?

He has played at that level or better multiple times in 09, he hasn't even played the full season, he was injured at the beginning at got reinjured right after getting back on track.

He also got beatdown by Soderling at the French, Berdych at Wimbledon (which he never does well at, but oh well), and had to retire at the USO. To me this shows that he cannot hold up in a slam anymore physically. His game is physically demanding, and right now I can't see him holding up physically to win a slam, not to mention the fact he's not good enough to beat great players in a slam.

Davydenko's best level is still not good enough to win a slam unless the most major of upsets happen in the early rounds to take top guys (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) out. He had a great opportunity at a final in France, but fell flat on his face vs Soderling. That may have been his best shot at a slam final.

Breaker
10-19-2009, 08:42 AM
He also got beatdown by Soderling at the French, Berdych at Wimbledon (which he never does well at, but oh well), and had to retire at the USO. To me this shows that he cannot hold up in a slam anymore physically.

He played 3 matches going into the French, 8 going into Wimbledon, and hurt himself along the way at the US Open whilst still rusty - and hasn't been at his best until after the US Open this year showing that he's back to his top fitness level. I suppose if you're going to go by just the last three slams then Nadal can't hold up together in a slam physically either.

His game is physically demanding, and right now I can't see him holding up physically to win a slam, not to mention the fact he's not good enough to beat great players in a slam.

He hasn't been good enough to beat Federer at a slam, there is no evidence that he's not good enough to beat these other 'top players'.

Davydenko's best level is still not good enough to win a slam unless the most major of upsets happen in the early rounds to take top guys (Fed, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray) out.

Djokovic and Murray losing relatively early at slams wouldnt be a big upset anymore, and they haven't shown that they can consistently beat Davydenko - and I would favour Davy by a landslide at a clay slam over Murray and Djokovic. On hard court Davydenko could very realistically beat Nadal as well.

He had a great opportunity at a final in France, but fell flat on his face vs Soderling. That may have been his best shot at a slam final.

Soderling was playing unbelievable tennis as already established by the entire tennis world, it took the pressure of a slam final and his worst matchup ever Federer to stop him from winning that title.

Breaker
11-28-2009, 08:58 AM
If only GameSampras were here to see this.