PDA

View Full Version : Agassi is Wrong


OddJack
10-19-2009, 04:33 PM
Agassi did not break any news. All the sport dominations come to an end. Sooner or later all the greats, geniuses and gifted athletes either retire for age or injury. We already expect the Federer/Nadal Domination of the Major titles expire. The two have won 20 of the last 24 Majors. For three years in a row no one but the two won the Big trophies.

But not yet, and certainly not replaced by Murray.

Here is why:

Let's go back to 1990 through 2003. For 14 years noone ever won more than two majors a year. In fact, except for 4 of those 14 years noone ever won more than one major. The point am getting at here is that after the Rodge/ Rafa domination this is what we are going to see.

Federer dominated because he was exceptionally good on all surfaces and Nadal was exceptionally good on one surface, the result was a closed door to everyone else. Since we do not have a player who is extra good on all surface and there same thing for clay, then top players will all have a chance to win any of those Majors. Murray will never have a chance to dominate.

Regarding his claim that the domination of the two is coming to an end, yes but not so fast. Roger's style of game will let him to play at high level fr some time to come. He is still beating most players under 5 with ease. Nadal is only 23. Granted that he has spent some tendons already,but at his age he can still recover and come back. He will be extra hungry for his FO title because that matters the most, and then there is AO.

SuperFly
10-19-2009, 04:52 PM
So is he wrong or is he late?

stormholloway
10-19-2009, 04:56 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?

JoshDragon
10-19-2009, 04:58 PM
Oddjack: Actually Rafa, was exceptionally good on grass as well as clay.

boredone3456
10-19-2009, 05:00 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?

He isn't dominating the non slam events like he used to, and has struggled in matches at the majors in more visible ways then he used to (Roddick at Wimbledon, Berdych at the Australian, Haas at the French), the rest of the tour is catching up and therefore Fed's total dominance is on the downswing. He may have won 2 majors, but his level is not as high as it once was on the tour as a whole.

flyinghippos101
10-19-2009, 05:06 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?

Federer has extra high standards, an ok year for him is atleast two slams. Good, yes but definately not considered "dominant" over the field anymore,he did get to the French Finals messy and was only points way from losing it to Haas. There won't be another player for years that will accomplish feats as great as either Federer or Nadal in such short time.

Polvorin
10-19-2009, 05:07 PM
I think that because the court surfaces are becoming more similar to each other it is going to be easier for one or two players to dominate the slams. Grass no longer plays like the grass of the 90's, for instance...serve and volley isn't a winning strategy at Wimbledon and that's just odd.

OddJack
10-19-2009, 05:09 PM
Oddjack: Actually Rafa, was exceptionally good on grass as well as clay.

He has one wimbledon title, that is really good, but not exceptional.

OddJack
10-19-2009, 05:12 PM
So is he wrong or is he late?

He is late in saying that it will end. Wrong that Murray will take over. He is being vague, ending... ok, but how does he see the 2010 majors?

JoshDragon
10-19-2009, 05:16 PM
He has one wimbledon title, that is really good, but not exceptional.

No. He's made 3 Wimbledon finals and came extremely close to winning the one in 2007. I think considering how good of a grass court player Roger is, that's a huge accomplishment.

He also won the Queens title last year against some very good grass court players.

I would say that Nadal is exceptionally good on grass but not quite as good as Pete and Roger.

stormholloway
10-19-2009, 05:16 PM
He isn't dominating the non slam events like he used to, and has struggled in matches at the majors in more visible ways then he used to (Roddick at Wimbledon, Berdych at the Australian, Haas at the French), the rest of the tour is catching up and therefore Fed's total dominance is on the downswing. He may have won 2 majors, but his level is not as high as it once was on the tour as a whole.

Federer has extra high standards, an ok year for him is atleast two slams. Good, yes but definately not considered "dominant" over the field anymore,he did get to the French Finals messy and was only points way from losing it to Haas. There won't be another player for years that will accomplish feats as great as either Federer or Nadal in such short time.

Basically these are the same answers: he isn't as dominant as he was. It's irrelevant. People called Hewitt's two slams in two years as "dominating". Federer is still dominating. Sure, there are challengers, but Federer still made 4 slam finals and won two of them. That's extremely dominant. The two slams he lost were lost in 5 sets.

His level compared to past years is irrelevant. People want his domination to end because they think it's exciting, so they 'wish' it to end by saying it's over. It isn't. Federer is still on top. I'm sorry you're bored with that, but that's reality.

OddJack
10-19-2009, 05:17 PM
No. He's made 3 Wimbledon finals and came extremely close to winning the one in 2007. I think considering how good of a grass court player Roger is, that's a huge accomplishment.

Alright.. just for you, it is huge accomplishment.

Back to the topic...

OddJack
10-19-2009, 05:21 PM
Basically these are the same answers: he isn't as dominant as he was. It's irrelevant. People called Hewitt's two slams in two years as "dominating". Federer is still dominating. Sure, there are challengers, but Federer still made 4 slam finals and won two of them. That's extremely dominant. The two slams he lost were lost in 5 sets.

His level compared to past years is irrelevant. People want his domination to end because they think it's exciting, so they 'wish' it to end by saying it's over. It isn't. Federer is still on top. I'm sorry you're bored with that, but that's reality.

I dont know about those people, but I think the domination is more exciting. What would replace a rivalry with Rafa? Would a racket smash make cnn news? How about tears, whether it's his or Delpotro?

Nah, I would keep the domination any day.

JoshDragon
10-19-2009, 05:27 PM
Alright.. just for you, it is huge accomplishment.

Back to the topic...

As for the rest of your original post I basically agree with you. I'm not sure what's going to happen to Murray, but I doubt he will ever be a dominant player. Murray will have to struggle with Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro, through out his career and at some point younger players like Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison, Dimitrov and possibly Nishikori will emerge strongly on tour and probably push Murray out of the top 5.

stormholloway
10-19-2009, 05:30 PM
I dont know about those people, but I think the domination is more exciting. What would replace a rivalry with Rafa? Would a racket smash make cnn news? How about tears, whether it's his or Delpotro?

Nah, I would keep the domination any day.

The end of a dominant era means a new era. People like new things. People should instead be appreciating a guy who is so good.

OddJack
10-19-2009, 05:42 PM
As for the rest of your original post I basically agree with you. I'm not sure what's going to happen to Murray, but I doubt he will ever be a dominant player. Murray will have to struggle with Nadal, Djokovic and Del Potro, through out his career and at some point younger players like Bernard Tomic, Ryan Harrison, Dimitrov and possibly Nishikori will emerge strongly on tour and probably push Murray out of the top 5.

You know, I always hated the word "overrated" in tennis, because most of the time it comes from dislike or hate. But if there is a good example of overrating it was Murray's #2 ranking after Rafa exit. Soon as he came back he is back to where he belongs.

I stll don't understand why so many pro players and Commentators continue to pick him as the future for ATP's top. Delpo, who is 2-3 years his junior just won one major and he has not.

To the day that big hitters and aggressive players such as Gonzo, Verdaso, Tsonga are there a defensive player like him has no chance for domination.
I say that would be a sad period for tennis if it happened.

Blinkism
10-19-2009, 05:47 PM
He has one wimbledon title, that is really good, but not exceptional.

He's got a Wimbledon title AND 2 finals where he took atleast 1 set off Federer (one of the top grass courters ever)

And add to that the fact that he has a Grass title (Queen's), and made the 3rd round of Wimbledon when he was like 16 or 17 (and made the semi's of junior wimby the year before)

Nadal is exceptional on grass- more than just really good.

EDIT: didn't see JoshDragon's post... sorry for repeating similar points!!

Blinkism
10-19-2009, 05:53 PM
You know, I always hated the word "overrated" in tennis, because most of the time it comes from dislike or hate. But if there is a good example of overrating it was Murray's #2 ranking after Rafa exit. Soon as he came back he is back to where he belongs.

I stll don't understand why so many pro players and Commentators continue to pick him as the future for ATP's top. Delpo, who is 2-3 years his junior just won one major and he has not.

To the day that big hitters and aggressive players such as Gonzo, Verdaso, Tsonga are there a defensive player like him has no chance for domination.
I say that would be a sad period for tennis if it happened.

I don't understand it, either!

I 100% agree with this post - there are many players that could threaten to upset the Federer/Nadal domination, but Murray ain't one of them.

I think Djokovic, Del Potro, Tsonga, and guys like Cilic and maybe some up-and-coming clay courters like Bellucci are the future.

Not pushers like Murray.

SuperFly
10-19-2009, 05:53 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?

That's not dominant by Federer's previous standards.

Blinkism
10-19-2009, 05:54 PM
delete post

8pNADAL
10-19-2009, 06:04 PM
Agassi did not break any news. All the sport dominations come to an end. Sooner or later all the greats, geniuses and gifted athletes either retire for age or injury. We already expect the Federer/Nadal Domination of the Major titles expire. The two have won 20 of the last 24 Majors. For three years in a row no one but the two won the Big trophies.

But not yet, and certainly not replaced by Murray.

Here is why:

Let's go back to 1990 through 2003. For 14 years noone ever won more than two majors a year. In fact, except for 4 of those 14 years noone ever won more than one major. The point am getting at here is that after the Rodge/ Rafa domination this is what we are going to see.

Federer dominated because he was exceptionally good on all surfaces and Nadal was exceptionally good on one surface, the result was a closed door to everyone else. Since we do not have a player who is extra good on all surface and there same thing for clay, then top players will all have a chance to win any of those Majors. Murray will never have a chance to dominate.

Regarding his claim that the domination of the two is coming to an end, yes but not so fast. Roger's style of game will let him to play at high level fr some time to come. He is still beating most players under 5 with ease. Nadal is only 23. Granted that he has spent some tendons already,but at his age he can still recover and come back. He will be extra hungry for his FO title because that matters the most, and then there is AO.

french open doesnt matter to nadal compared to wimbledon, when nadal was 3 year old he told uncle toni he wants to win wimbledon, made no mention of the french open, and nadals obsession with wimbledon only increased when federer called him one-dimensional, and now that he missed the chance of defending his crown at wimbledon then his obsession increases even more, plus the crowds at roland garros are dirt to him

JoshDragon
10-20-2009, 10:24 AM
You know, I always hated the word "overrated" in tennis, because most of the time it comes from dislike or hate. But if there is a good example of overrating it was Murray's #2 ranking after Rafa exit. Soon as he came back he is back to where he belongs.

I stll don't understand why so many pro players and Commentators continue to pick him as the future for ATP's top. Delpo, who is 2-3 years his junior just won one major and he has not.

To the day that big hitters and aggressive players such as Gonzo, Verdaso, Tsonga are there a defensive player like him has no chance for domination.
I say that would be a sad period for tennis if it happened.

Actually no, Del Potro is only 1 year younger than Murray and back when they were junior players both of those guys had a very intense rivalry.

I think the reason that some commentators have chosen Murray as a future dominant player was mainly because of Roger and possibly Nadal's retirement from the game in the next 3 years. Djokovic has been inconsistent at times and most of the speculation about Murray dominating was before Del Potro had won his first major.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-20-2009, 10:51 AM
Oddjack: Actually Rafa, was exceptionally good on grass as well as clay.
But the grass WAS clay :twisted:

nikdom
10-20-2009, 12:45 PM
Basically these are the same answers: he isn't as dominant as he was. It's irrelevant. People called Hewitt's two slams in two years as "dominating". Federer is still dominating. Sure, there are challengers, but Federer still made 4 slam finals and won two of them. That's extremely dominant. The two slams he lost were lost in 5 sets.

His level compared to past years is irrelevant. People want his domination to end because they think it's exciting, so they 'wish' it to end by saying it's over. It isn't. Federer is still on top. I'm sorry you're bored with that, but that's reality.

I doff my hat to you sir. Well said!

JoshDragon
10-20-2009, 04:14 PM
But the grass WAS clay :twisted:

So then according to your logic Roger would have never actually won Wimbledon on grass since it was slow when he started winning there. Roger has really only won Wimbledon on clay.:roll:

stormholloway
10-20-2009, 08:46 PM
That's not dominant by Federer's previous standards.

It's as if you didn't read my previous post on this very point. It's irrelevant. Personal standards have nothing to do with domination over other players. Nobody challenges Federer's dominance for 2009, not even close.

zagor
10-20-2009, 09:52 PM
It's as if you didn't read my previous post on this very point. It's irrelevant. Personal standards have nothing to do with domination over other players. Nobody challenges Federer's dominance for 2009, not even close.

Agree completely,it's really ridiculous to say that the guy that reached 4 slam finals,won 2 of them and won 2 masters titles this year isn't dominating.Jeez I guess then Sampras(and other greats who never won 3 slams in a year)never had a dominant year in their entire careers.

The standards people hold Fed to sometimes are really insane.

aphex
10-21-2009, 06:34 AM
french open doesnt matter to nadal compared to wimbledon, when nadal was 3 year old he told uncle toni he wants to win wimbledon, made no mention of the french open, and nadals obsession with wimbledon only increased when federer called him one-dimensional, and now that he missed the chance of defending his crown at wimbledon then his obsession increases even more, plus the crowds at roland garros are dirt to him

what a coincidence! he is dirt to them as well.

dropshot winner
10-21-2009, 06:38 AM
what a coincidence! he is dirt to them as well.

That's not true. It's not like they never supported him.

They wanted to see an upset because it was almost unthinkable that Nadal could lose at RG, that's why they supported Soderling.

aphex
10-21-2009, 06:43 AM
That's not true. It's not like they never supported him.

They wanted to see an upset because it was almost unthinkable that Nadal could lose at RG, that's why they supported Soderling.


no, he is very much disliked. they booed him off the court.

TMF
10-21-2009, 06:50 AM
Uncle Toni never like the FO crowd. After Nadal's disturbing loss in Paris this year, Toni called RG fans "STUPID". Here's the article....


MADRID -- Rafael Nadal's uncle and coach Toni Nadal called Roland Garros spectators stupid on Monday for their treatment of his nephew during his shock French Open loss to Robin Soderling.

Toni Nadal complained about spectators' treatment of his nephew in a radio interview.
The world No. 1 was booed by the French crowd when he retired injured from the Paris Masters at Bercy last year and found scant support among the Roland Garros spectators on Sunday during his failed bid for a fifth consecutive title.

In an interview with the Spanish radio station Cadena Ser, Toni Nadal said there was some truth to the phrase: "There is only one set of supporters that is worse than the French and that is the Parisians." "They say it themselves and it's true, the Parisian crowd is pretty stupid. I think the French don't like it when a Spaniard wins," he added. "Wanting someone to lose is a slightly conceited way of amusing yourself. They show the stupidity of people who think themselves superior."

Nadal said after his loss to Soderling it appeared the crowd had been supporting the Swede rather than him at one point, which he called sad.

"This tournament is so important, such a beautiful tournament for me. Well, that's the way it is," he said. "But I wish when I'm back they can support me a bit more in key moments."

dropshot winner
10-21-2009, 06:50 AM
no, he is very much disliked. they booed him off the court.

I never saw that. Sure some people in the crowd might boeed him, but they do that almost every time a player challenges a call or argues with the umpire.

Nadal is liked by the crowd, but they don't support him like their compatriots or Federer.

danb
10-21-2009, 04:57 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?

Very simple - he didn't win the 3.5 USTA tournament at my club ... :confused::confused:

nereis
10-21-2009, 05:07 PM
I don't see Federer dropping off significantly next year, and Nadal will be back with a vengeance. I wouldn't write them off just yet. You still have to beat Federer to win a major, after all.

NamRanger
10-21-2009, 06:23 PM
Federer won 2 majors and is a clear number one. How is that still not dominant?



Because he has not faced the legendary NTRP 4.5 players on here that can crush Justine Henin 0 and 0.

wangs78
10-21-2009, 06:27 PM
Agassi did not break any news. All the sport dominations come to an end. Sooner or later all the greats, geniuses and gifted athletes either retire for age or injury. We already expect the Federer/Nadal Domination of the Major titles expire. The two have won 20 of the last 24 Majors. For three years in a row no one but the two won the Big trophies.

But not yet, and certainly not replaced by Murray.

Here is why:

Let's go back to 1990 through 2003. For 14 years noone ever won more than two majors a year. In fact, except for 4 of those 14 years noone ever won more than one major. The point am getting at here is that after the Rodge/ Rafa domination this is what we are going to see.

Federer dominated because he was exceptionally good on all surfaces and Nadal was exceptionally good on one surface, the result was a closed door to everyone else. Since we do not have a player who is extra good on all surface and there same thing for clay, then top players will all have a chance to win any of those Majors. Murray will never have a chance to dominate.

Regarding his claim that the domination of the two is coming to an end, yes but not so fast. Roger's style of game will let him to play at high level fr some time to come. He is still beating most players under 5 with ease. Nadal is only 23. Granted that he has spent some tendons already,but at his age he can still recover and come back. He will be extra hungry for his FO title because that matters the most, and then there is AO.

You make good points. Basically, we are going to go back to an era without a dominating player again, probably starting NOW. Roger will still be in the mix, but I don't see him winning more than two slams a year, although I think he still has an outside chance of it in '10.

edmondsm
10-21-2009, 08:12 PM
That's not dominant by Federer's previous standards.

His previous standards didn't include winning the FO/Wimbledon double.

I think Federer, and Nadal for that matter, are in a place where they're reputations are based solely on GS titles. It seems like Federer is mastering the ability to peak at majors like Sampras. Nadal needs to learn how to do that still.

namelessone
10-21-2009, 09:14 PM
Uncle Toni never like the FO crowd. After Nadal's disturbing loss in Paris this year, Toni called RG fans "STUPID". Here's the article....


MADRID -- Rafael Nadal's uncle and coach Toni Nadal called Roland Garros spectators stupid on Monday for their treatment of his nephew during his shock French Open loss to Robin Soderling.

Toni Nadal complained about spectators' treatment of his nephew in a radio interview.
The world No. 1 was booed by the French crowd when he retired injured from the Paris Masters at Bercy last year and found scant support among the Roland Garros spectators on Sunday during his failed bid for a fifth consecutive title.

In an interview with the Spanish radio station Cadena Ser, Toni Nadal said there was some truth to the phrase: "There is only one set of supporters that is worse than the French and that is the Parisians." "They say it themselves and it's true, the Parisian crowd is pretty stupid. I think the French don't like it when a Spaniard wins," he added. "Wanting someone to lose is a slightly conceited way of amusing yourself. They show the stupidity of people who think themselves superior."

Nadal said after his loss to Soderling it appeared the crowd had been supporting the Swede rather than him at one point, which he called sad.

"This tournament is so important, such a beautiful tournament for me. Well, that's the way it is," he said. "But I wish when I'm back they can support me a bit more in key moments."


And did he say something that was out of place? Ok,not every guy/girl in the arena that day was booing Nadal or something like that but it is true that most tennis fans in Paris don't like Nadal,for whatever reason. This is very true. Only in RG can a 4 times champ get little to no support in key moments of a crucial match. I'm not gonna go over the whole Spanish/French thing again because I covered it in another thread about the parisian crowd when I also talked about the childish allegation that people were actually supporting Soderling not ignoring Nadal. Obviously everybody dumped Soderling once he got the job done(to beat Nadal) and when he faced Fed almost no one in that arena was rooting for the swede.

Ask any player after he retires what the worst crowd in GS and they will tell you it is the French,Parisians specifically. They regularly boo players there when they check for marks and it is a very fickle crowd to say the least. They do not show the same respect for their champs as in other Slams as evidenced by their behaviour,of which Nadal is only the latest victim. It's not like this hasn't happened before here. After Nadal murdered everyone in RG 2008,giving the Parisians one of the best displays of claycourt tennis they will ever see,he got booed in the Paris Masters when he retired against Davydenko. I understand that the spectators wanted to see more tennis but booing a injured player for retiring is major BS. And you have to remember that at the time Nadal was nr.1,had just done "the double" and won the gold Medal in the Olympics. That didn't matter to the crowd,not for one second. And Nadal really was injured seeing as he missed TMC and DC final.

TheMagicianOfPrecision
10-22-2009, 03:42 AM
Its a weird thing, the best moments in Nadals career has come in Paris, and the toughest moments in his career has also come in Paris, he was even booed when he had too retire at Paris Bercy the other year.

TMF
10-22-2009, 08:49 AM
And did he say something that was out of place? Ok,not every guy/girl in the arena that day was booing Nadal or something like that but it is true that most tennis fans in Paris don't like Nadal,for whatever reason. This is very true. Only in RG can a 4 times champ get little to no support in key moments of a crucial match. I'm not gonna go over the whole Spanish/French thing again because I covered it in another thread about the parisian crowd when I also talked about the childish allegation that people were actually supporting Soderling not ignoring Nadal. Obviously everybody dumped Soderling once he got the job done(to beat Nadal) and when he faced Fed almost no one in that arena was rooting for the swede.

Ask any player after he retires what the worst crowd in GS and they will tell you it is the French,Parisians specifically. They regularly boo players there when they check for marks and it is a very fickle crowd to say the least. They do not show the same respect for their champs as in other Slams as evidenced by their behaviour,of which Nadal is only the latest victim. It's not like this hasn't happened before here. After Nadal murdered everyone in RG 2008,giving the Parisians one of the best displays of claycourt tennis they will ever see,he got booed in the Paris Masters when he retired against Davydenko. I understand that the spectators wanted to see more tennis but booing a injured player for retiring is major BS. And you have to remember that at the time Nadal was nr.1,had just done "the double" and won the gold Medal in the Olympics. That didn't matter to the crowd,not for one second. And Nadal really was injured seeing as he missed TMC and DC final.

Uncle Toni was vocal this year was largely due to his nephew lost in Paris. Had Nadal won the FO, I donít think he would of said anything about the Parisian. As always, the crowd was the same as the previous years, but Toni didnít lash out against them after Nadal won the FO. Itís true that he said the French crowd are not that friendly and insensitive, but winning solved everything. Toniís anger was mixed with Nadalís loss to Soderling, and it fuel him to speak up. Also, the crowd has the right to root which player they want to win. Toni is just upset b/c he didnít have the kind of numbers supporting Nadal. Well, such as life. If Nadal win RG next year, let see if Toni attack the Parisons again.

Did you see Wawrinka(and his coach) complaining at all when he lost to Murray at SW19? Stanley got ZERO support from the crowd. In fact, they were obnoxious; treating him as an illegal alien; and heís not suppose to win the match. Iím not sure Stanley would dare to smile had he pulled out the win.

jazzyfunkybluesy
10-22-2009, 08:57 AM
No Agassi your era has ended.

Matt H.
10-22-2009, 10:15 AM
Fed's back to back losses against Canas in 2007 is where his "total dominance" in the non-slam arena ended.

I believe his loss to Del Potro will prove to be the mark where his slam dominance ends.

Fedex
10-23-2009, 07:19 AM
I don't understand it, either!

I 100% agree with this post - there are many players that could threaten to upset the Federer/Nadal domination, but Murray ain't one of them.

I think Djokovic, Del Potro, Tsonga, and guys like Cilic and maybe some up-and-coming clay courters like Bellucci are the future.

Not pushers like Murray.

Blinkered. Your bias is really starting to p me off.
We all know you hate Murray. Hundreds of times we know now!
We know you think he's a pusher, we know, we know! We know you have an irrational hate for the guy but you don't have to tell us everytime.
If you hate him so much why don't you contact him yourself and tell him straight to his face.
Might be the best and least cowardly thing you could do rather than hide behind a monitor repeatedly boring the pants off us about how much you hate someone.
He's not Hitler for Christs sakes!
You've said you hate those obnoxious spoilt middleclass tennis players that hog the court and won't let you join in the clique.
Well you're starting to sound like one.
I've met Andy Murray's mother. She coached my kids.
Would you like me to arrange a meeting and you can talk to her about stuff?
Get a grip.

icazares
10-23-2009, 10:09 AM
He isn't dominating the non slam events like he used to, and has struggled in matches at the majors in more visible ways then he used to (Roddick at Wimbledon, Berdych at the Australian, Haas at the French), the rest of the tour is catching up and therefore Fed's total dominance is on the downswing. He may have won 2 majors, but his level is not as high as it once was on the tour as a whole.

Respectfully disagree. Had he won the 2nd set in the final with Del Potro, and therefore won in straights, we all would be talking about how Federer murdered the field in Cincy and New York. I think he played some of his best tennis ever this year in the US. Unfortunately, the 2nd set with Del Potro cost him the major prize.

jazzyfunkybluesy
10-27-2009, 08:56 AM
Murray can push and beat players easily outside the top 5 but then he is much more agressive against the top guys. I think this constant pressure is key to beating Fed, Del Pot, Nadal, Djoker. Instead he has played rather passive for the 09 season. His serve also varies from untouchable to average (pros standards)

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-27-2009, 09:01 AM
Fed's been dominant enough to me. He reached the finals of every slam this year, won 2 slams, 2 masters event.. Yea it isnt 05-06 domination like Fed had at his peak but hes still the clear number 1 and with Murray and Djoker not producing as they should, Nadal being injured for most the year, and guys like Del Potro with lots of promise but still kind of green, Fed is still on top until proven otherwise IMO.

AJK1
10-27-2009, 05:41 PM
Agassi did not break any news. All the sport dominations come to an end. Sooner or later all the greats, geniuses and gifted athletes either retire for age or injury. We already expect the Federer/Nadal Domination of the Major titles expire. The two have won 20 of the last 24 Majors. For three years in a row no one but the two won the Big trophies.

But not yet, and certainly not replaced by Murray.

Here is why:

Let's go back to 1990 through 2003. For 14 years noone ever won more than two majors a year. In fact, except for 4 of those 14 years noone ever won more than one major. The point am getting at here is that after the Rodge/ Rafa domination this is what we are going to see.

Federer dominated because he was exceptionally good on all surfaces and Nadal was exceptionally good on one surface, the result was a closed door to everyone else. Since we do not have a player who is extra good on all surface and there same thing for clay, then top players will all have a chance to win any of those Majors. Murray will never have a chance to dominate.

Regarding his claim that the domination of the two is coming to an end, yes but not so fast. Roger's style of game will let him to play at high level fr some time to come. He is still beating most players under 5 with ease. Nadal is only 23. Granted that he has spent some tendons already,but at his age he can still recover and come back. He will be extra hungry for his FO title because that matters the most, and then there is AO.

English is obviously not your primary language. :confused:

JeMar
10-27-2009, 05:45 PM
Agassi must have been on something when he made this statement.

Too soon?

jazzyfunkybluesy
10-29-2009, 06:43 AM
Agassi must have been on something when he made this statement.

Too soon?

Exactly. Agassi are you still hitting the Meth?

OddJack
10-29-2009, 08:41 AM
English is obviously not your primary language. :confused:

I have a editing position open you can apply for.

AJK1
10-30-2009, 07:30 PM
I have a editing position open you can apply for.

Should be 'an' not 'a'

veroniquem
10-30-2009, 07:38 PM
It's as if you didn't read my previous post on this very point. It's irrelevant. Personal standards have nothing to do with domination over other players. Nobody challenges Federer's dominance for 2009, not even close.

And yet knee busted, out of the tour for months Nadal leads Federer for # of titles won this year and still has a mathematical chance for recovering #1 within a month. Yeah not even close :roll:

OddJack
10-30-2009, 09:40 PM
Should be 'an' not 'a'

You're hired. Keep it up.

Compensates for your lack of opinion also.

dh003i
10-30-2009, 09:57 PM
And yet knee busted, out of the tour for months Nadal leads Federer for # of titles won this year and still has a mathematical chance for recovering #1 within a month. Yeah not even close :roll:

Nadal's as close as anyone this year, but that still isn't close. Nadal's busted knee was largely his own doing. He as superb genetics, so the fault for his constant injury problems is his style of play and playing too many tournaments.

Federer is about 1,000 points ahead of Nadal, right? It would be quite a feat for Nadal to catch up by the end of the year, even if possible.

Steve132
10-31-2009, 12:11 AM
And yet knee busted, out of the tour for months Nadal leads Federer for # of titles won this year and still has a mathematical chance for recovering #1 within a month. Yeah not even close :roll:

Despite being "out of the tour for months" Nadal missed just three scheduled tournaments - Dubai, Queen's Club and Wimbledon. His absence from the tour largely coincided with the post-Wimbledon break. He has played 15 tournaments to date this year, and these tournaments are collectively worth a maximum of 15,750 ranking points.

Federer has missed four scheduled tournaments - Dubai, Halle, Beijing and Shanghai. He has played 12 tournaments to date this year, and these tournaments are collectively worth a maximum of 15,250 ranking points. Despite this, Federer leads Nadal by more than 1,000 in ranking points earned this year.

To me that seems a significant difference.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 12:14 AM
Nadal's as close as anyone this year, but that still isn't close. Nadal's busted knee was largely his own doing. He as superb genetics, so the fault for his constant injury problems is his style of play and playing too many tournaments.

Federer is about 1,000 points ahead of Nadal, right? It would be quite a feat for Nadal to catch up by the end of the year, even if possible.

Yes, I also find it very unlikely. I'd say less than 5% chance. His outlook for next year is brighter because he has a small amount of points to defend at Roland Garros and zero points to defend at Wimbledon.

Camilio Pascual
10-31-2009, 08:27 AM
He has one wimbledon title, that is really good, but not exceptional.
Let's check out your logic.
So...Nadal with one Wimbledon title is NOT exceptional, but Federer with one French Open title IS exceptional?

TMF
10-31-2009, 08:34 AM
Let's check out your logic.
So...Nadal with one Wimbledon title is NOT exceptional, but Federer with one French Open title IS exceptional?

I think it's exceptional but not comparable to Roger winning the FO since it's Roger's worst surface. Only Nadal can compare to Roger's FO triumph if he can ever win the USO(his worst surface).

Steve132
10-31-2009, 08:37 AM
Let's check out your logic.
So...Nadal with one Wimbledon title is NOT exceptional, but Federer with one French Open title IS exceptional?

Federer is not exceptional on clay. He is exceptional as an all-round player, because he has 15 majors, a career slam, won 11 majors in 4 years, reached 16 of 17 major finals, made 22 consecutive semi finals in majors, held the no. 1 position for 237 consecutive weeks, etc.

OddJack
10-31-2009, 04:07 PM
Let's check out your logic.
So...Nadal with one Wimbledon title is NOT exceptional, but Federer with one French Open title IS exceptional?

I was talking about grass in particular.

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 04:10 PM
Federer is not exceptional on clay. He is exceptional as an all-round player, because he has 15 majors, a career slam, won 11 majors in 4 years, reached 16 of 17 major finals, made 22 consecutive semi finals n majors, held the no. 1 position for 237 consecutive weeks, etc.

I think he is talking about Federer and Nadal's specific records at Wimbledon/French Open, in which case their records are somewhat similar.

hoodjem
10-31-2009, 04:49 PM
No. He's made 3 Wimbledon finals and came extremely close to winning the one in 2007. I think considering how good of a grass court player Roger is, that's a huge accomplishment.

He also won the Queens title last year against some very good grass court players.

I would say that Nadal is exceptionally good on grass but not quite as good as Pete and Roger.
That's an interesting question: how good is Nadal on grass in the Open Era? Where does he rank compared to not only Sampras and Fed, but also Edberg, Borg, Mac, Becker, etc.

akv89
10-31-2009, 05:08 PM
That's an interesting question: how good is Nadal on grass in the Open Era? Where does he rank compared to not only Sampras and Fed, but also Edberg, Borg, Mac, Becker, etc.

Nadal's resume on grass is not good enough in comparison to those guys (they're all multiple time champions at Wimbledon). Right now, he'd be on par with Ivanisevic and above one-time champions like Krajicek, Stich, and Pat Cash.

Bjorkman & Johnny Mac
10-31-2009, 05:10 PM
Totally different grass... Nadal does not compare to the likes of Becker, Pete, Edberg etc. You may as well label it Grass 1 and Grass 2.

We can say Nadal is one of the best on slower grass next to Fed. The surface has changed so much over the last 8-9 years you cant even compare. Grass should have two sepearate era type cateogories. Wimbeldon Pre 01-02, Wimbeldon 01-present

veroniquem
10-31-2009, 06:26 PM
Nadal's resume on grass is not good enough in comparison to those guys (they're all multiple time champions at Wimbledon). Right now, he'd be on par with Ivanisevic and above one-time champions like Krajicek, Stich, and Pat Cash.


Oh no! Sorry but neither Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich or Cash have played 3 consecutive W finals. Actually the only guys who have played 3 W finals or more are the 1st category you mentioned: Borg, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Sampras and Fed AKA the "real" grass court specialists. I have absolutely no doubt that Nadal will end up his career with more than 1 W title as well, so your objection will become obsolete soon enough!

T1000
10-31-2009, 06:28 PM
Oh no! Sorry but neither Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich or Cash have played 3 consecutive W finals. Actually the only guys who have played 3 W finals or more are the 1st category you mentioned: Borg, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Sampras and Fed AKA the "real" grass court specialists. I have absolutely no doubt that Nadal will end up his career with more than 1 W title as well, so your objection will become obsolete soon enough!

Than Federer belongs in the top 3 of the clay GOATS because he's made the finals the last 4 years and has one title. Only Borg and Nadal have made this many so therefore he is up there with them

Baikalic
10-31-2009, 06:31 PM
Than Federer belongs in the top 3 of the clay GOATS because he's made the finals the last 4 years and has one title. Only Borg and Nadal have made this many so therefore he is up there with them

Veroniquem is only explicitly arguing that Nadal is above par with respect to 1 time Wimbledon winners, not that he belongs in the pantheon of Wimbledon grreats. He is NOT arguing that Nadal belongs in the top 3 of grass GOATs.

akv89
10-31-2009, 10:42 PM
Oh no! Sorry but neither Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich or Cash have played 3 consecutive W finals. Actually the only guys who have played 3 W finals or more are the 1st category you mentioned: Borg, Edberg, Becker, McEnroe, Sampras and Fed AKA the "real" grass court specialists. I have absolutely no doubt that Nadal will end up his career with more than 1 W title as well, so your objection will become obsolete soon enough!

I said I rank Nadal above guys like Stich, Krajicek, and Cash. But Nadal still doesn't have the results to be ranked above Ivanisevic (2 SF + 3 finals + 1 win). He might in the future, but he doesn't yet. When he has a better resume, then I'll rank him above Goran.

vive le beau jeu !
11-01-2009, 01:35 AM
Oh no! Sorry but neither Ivanisevic, Krajicek, Stich or Cash have played 3 consecutive W finals.
who care about consecutive ?
4 finals to 3 for goran, 6 SF to 3 for goran.