PDA

View Full Version : Federer's biggest rival (2004-2007)


YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 12:42 PM
Which player tried consistently to stop Federer during the 2004-2007 period?

kishnabe
04-10-2011, 12:42 PM
Djokovic......

Tony48
04-10-2011, 12:47 PM
Roddick.

He consistently tried and he consistently failed.

aphex
04-10-2011, 12:56 PM
That screaming blonde prostitute in Djokovic's box.

dominikk1985
04-10-2011, 12:58 PM
are you serious?

I think nadal is the only player to lead the head to head against fed from 04-07.

Roy125
04-10-2011, 01:04 PM
It's obvious that the answer is hewitt.

Manus Domini
04-10-2011, 01:30 PM
I guessed Agassi, don't know

NadalAgassi
04-10-2011, 01:31 PM
Nadal of course. Dumb question really.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 01:31 PM
are you serious?

I think nadal is the only player to lead the head to head against fed from 04-07.

Are you telling me that a ~18 year old Nadal who was nothing but a clay specialist back then caused Federer the most trouble? He can't be Federer's biggest rival... :shock:

Gene1994
04-10-2011, 01:32 PM
I'd say Hanescu..

NadalAgassi
04-10-2011, 01:33 PM
Are you telling me that a ~18 year old Nadal who was nothing but a clay specialist back then caused Federer the most trouble? He can't be Federer's biggest rival... :shock:

Nadal made the finals of Wimbledon in both 2006 and 2007 and won 2 Masters titles on hard courts as early as 2005. He obviously was never just a clay court specialist.

Cup8489
04-10-2011, 01:42 PM
Roddick was the one trying the most to get the better of Federer, so in that sense he was Fed's chief rival, but Nadal as well.

MichaelNadal
04-10-2011, 01:45 PM
Nadal made the finals of Wimbledon in both 2006 and 2007 and won 2 Masters titles on hard courts as early as 2005. He obviously was never just a clay court specialist.


http://www.deviantart.com/download/189905773/mario_bros_haters_gonna_hate_by_mattmcmanis-d352c8d.gif

dominikk1985
04-10-2011, 01:48 PM
Are you telling me that a ~18 year old Nadal who was nothing but a clay specialist back then caused Federer the most trouble? He can't be Federer's biggest rival... :shock:

who else was his rival? hewitt? bend over-roddick? 100yo agassi (actually old not 29:D)? 12 yo Djokovic?

If anyone was his rival it was nadal although he certainly couldn't challenge him over a whole season at this point.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 01:50 PM
Nadal made the finals of Wimbledon in both 2006 and 2007 and won 2 Masters titles on hard courts as early as 2005. He obviously was never just a clay court specialist.

It's still a little concerning when a 18 year old kid who is no where near his prime is Federer's biggest rival. ( according to you)
What does this tell you about the rest of the field?

The-Champ
04-10-2011, 01:52 PM
That screaming blonde prostitute in Djokovic's box.

that's not a prostitute. That's dijana, his mom.

NadalAgassi
04-10-2011, 01:54 PM
It's still a little concerning when a 18 year old kid who is no where near his prime is Federer's biggest rival. ( according to you)
What does this tell you about the rest of the field?

I never said it was a strong field.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 01:57 PM
I never said it was a strong field.

Thank you.

Sid_Vicious
04-10-2011, 02:08 PM
Roddick and Hewitt.

Hewitt's career took just as big a hit by Federer's presence as Roddicks'.

AO 2004
Federer def. Hewitt R16 4-6, 6-3, 6-0, 6-4

WIM 2004
Federer def. Hewitt QF 6-1, 6-7(1), 6-0, 6-4

USO 2004
Federer def. Hewitt F 6-0 7-6 6-0

WIM 2005
Federer def. Hewitt SF 6-3, 6-4, 7-6(4) (lleyton performed much better than Roddick did in the F)

USO 2005
Federer def. Hewitt SF 6-3, 7-6(0), 4-6, 6-3 (Definitely Federer's toughest match of that USO)

Sid_Vicious
04-10-2011, 02:21 PM
Today's field is pretty weak as well. Nadal pretty much ravaged everyone in 2010. Berdych at Wimbledon? Soderling at RG? Djokovic at USO? None of those guys got even close to taking the trophy from Nadal.

Djokovic winning the AO against Murray (lol strong era :lol:) and back to back masters does not really tell us if this era has suddenly gotten stronger. When Djokovic manages to win a single big match from Nadal at a grand slam I will begin to consider it. Using a few months worth of results to make a statement about the quality of an era is utterly moronic. That is like saying that the era was strong from "October 2004- to January 2005 " because Marat Safin won back-to-back masters and won the AO. An era does not constitute 3 months.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 02:23 PM
hey who you think you are ??? that`s my mother :mad:

http://www.deviantart.com/download/189905773/mario_bros_haters_gonna_hate_by_mattmcmanis-d352c8d.gif

Li Ching Yuen
04-10-2011, 02:25 PM
Sampras' records.

MajinX
04-10-2011, 02:26 PM
how is this field any stronger than the one back then? nadal dominates this one... and federer dominated the other one, fields only look stronger if the top player gets beat more often, but does that actually mean the field is stronger or the top players are weaker..? IMO its impossible to determine that unless u can somehow compare every aspect which is of course not possible

I would say fed had no real rivals back then but a couple guys who gave him a bit of trouble, nalbandian for one.

YodaKnowsBest
04-10-2011, 02:48 PM
Today's field is pretty weak as well. Nadal pretty much ravaged everyone in 2010. Berdych at Wimbledon? Soderling at RG? Djokovic at USO? None of those guys got even close to taking the trophy from Nadal.

Djokovic was exhausted because of the 5-setter he played with Federer. He still managed to take a set away from Nadal so kudos to him.
He was in a slump mode during most of the 2009-2010, but it does not take away for what he's capable of. He's still a dangerous opponent even without his serve.

Solderling is no ordinary claycourter, he already prooved that in 2009 and repeated the same result in 2010.

You are using one miracle of a example. Berdych is one of the lucky guys who broke trough, but this happens in every era once in a while.

Djokovic winning the AO against Murray (lol strong era :lol:) and back to back masters does not really tell us if this era has suddenly gotten stronger.


I think you're taking Murray very lightly here. Do not forget that he's the one leading the h2h against Federer and has made 3 grandslam finals. This is another sign of a strong era. ( slamless Murray)


When Djokovic manages to win a single big match from Nadal at a grand slam I will begin to consider it. Using a few months worth of results to make a statement about the quality of an era is utterly moronic. That is like saying that the era was strong from "October 2004- to January 2005 " because Marat Safin won back-to-back masters and won the AO. An era does not constitute 3 months.

I never said that we have a strong era because of Djokovic's dominance. We have Nadal and Federer, one of the greatest players in history competing in this era and you dare to question it... Djokovic is another born legend who will proove himself in the next upcoming years.

gunnd5000
04-10-2011, 02:51 PM
Which player tried consistently to stop Federer during the 2004-2007 period?

tried or suceeded, because well roddick wins in only one of those catagories

Knightmace
04-10-2011, 08:20 PM
pete sampras cus im cool

powerangle
04-10-2011, 08:33 PM
Take away Federer and Nadal themselves, and today's field is not any stronger than it was during 2004-2007.

aphex
04-10-2011, 09:46 PM
that's not a prostitute. That's dijana, his mom.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Omega_7000
04-10-2011, 10:14 PM
Enjoy your trolling while you can YKB...Djokovic's streak ain't gonna last forever.

aphex
04-10-2011, 11:43 PM
http://www.deviantart.com/download/189905773/mario_bros_haters_gonna_hate_by_mattmcmanis-d352c8d.gif

Lol poor Yoda has his head so far up Djoko's arse that he sucks up to someone who pretends to be djokovic's little brother LMAO

Must be the lack of oxygen in there lol

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 12:14 AM
Take away Federer and Nadal themselves, and today's field is not any stronger than it was during 2004-2007.

The King would bagel everyone and stay undeafeted the whole period.(2004-2007)
Murray would atleast win 3 hardcourt gs. Solderling would get away with one grandslam (French Open).
The same goes for Del Potro as for Murray winning atleast 3 hardcourt grandslams.

I believe that today's top 5 ( Del Potro included) would completely dominate the tour. ( 2004-2007)

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 12:27 AM
Enjoy your trolling while you can YKB...Djokovic's streak ain't gonna last forever.

Who says it will? :lol: The King brought tennis to a whole nother level, as a tennisfan you should be happy.

IvanisevicServe
04-11-2011, 02:46 AM
The guy who gave Federer the biggest scares outside of Nadal was Nalbandian. He had the game to go toe-to-toe with him, leading to some absolutely epic matches.

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 04:10 AM
no one rember usopen 2007 ? :|

Djordje. stop this instant. go clean your room, soon we will have the Ivanovic's coming for luch and i dont want to cause a bad impression on your Brother's Nole future mother in law.

mandy01
04-11-2011, 04:22 AM
Djordje. stop this instant. go clean your room, soon we will have the Ivanovic's coming for luch and i dont want to cause a bad impression on your Brother's Nole future mother in law.oh Dijana you must be a little lenient with your son.
We Ivanovics don't mind messy rooms so much :cool:

Legend of Borg
04-11-2011, 04:23 AM
That screaming blonde prostitute in Djokovic's box.

Along with the hired drunk Serbian cheerleader squad.

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 04:25 AM
oh Dijana you must be a little lenient with your son.Besides,Ana won't be going to room anyway.She'd be in Novak's room.This is obvious! :evil:

We Ivanovics don't mind messy rooms so much :cool:

Dragana, my dear... how are you. please come sooner so we can put our conversation in order!!! dont forget to bring that amazing Sudzuk you make... Srdjan loves that!!!!

aphex
04-11-2011, 04:36 AM
Dragana, my dear... how are you. please come sooner so we can put our conversation in order!!! dont forget to bring that amazing Sudzuk you make... Srdjan loves that!!!!


Y U NO INVITE ME?

http://english.blic.rs/_customfiles/Image/slike/2008/11_novembar/19/zabava/tipsarevic-ver.jpg

mandy01
04-11-2011, 04:40 AM
Dragana, my dear... how are you. please come sooner so we can put our conversation in order!!! dont forget to bring that amazing Sudzuk you make... Srdjan loves that!!!!Sur sur...I vill olso bring underhand with me.Srdjan wud njoy hiz company :)

aphex
04-11-2011, 04:44 AM
Hahaha! i don`t speak this to tipsa anymore

y djordje? wat happin?

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 04:45 AM
Janko say bad things about my son. no longer Legenda!

aphex
04-11-2011, 04:48 AM
Janko say bad things about my son. no longer Legenda!

No more sudzuk for Tipsa?:cry:

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/janko-tipsarevic-miami08.jpg?w=450

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 04:50 AM
I see what you guys are doing. You don't like my thread so you troll it to avoid the subject, a typical ******* move...

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 04:53 AM
No more sudzuk for Tipsa?:cry:

http://cornedbeefhash.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/janko-tipsarevic-miami08.jpg?w=450

unless you retire words you said that Nole no good for Srbija David Coop!!!

then you can join us in the lunch with the Ivanovics and have all the sudzuk you want. dont let Jelena know we haveing a party. she is no welcome!

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 04:54 AM
I see what you guys are doing. You don't like my thread so you troll it to avoid the subject, a typical ******* move...

hey YKB... actually we are just having a go at your new alternative avatar... wink wink...

aphex
04-11-2011, 05:02 AM
unless you retire words you said that Nole no good for Srbija David Coop!!!

then you can join us in the lunch with the Ivanovics and have all the sudzuk you want. dont let Jelena know we haveing a party. she is no welcome!

Ana be there too?

Ok, ok, Nole good for Srjbjrbra!

If vife call, say I at practice...

Be there in 15 Dijana!

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 05:06 AM
Ana be there too?

Ok, ok, Nole good for Srjbjrbra!

If vife call, say I at practice...

Be there in 15 Dijana!

bring sljivovica and ice.

aphex
04-11-2011, 05:12 AM
bring sljivovica and ice.

I bring special mix..sljivo-hypnol...very good

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 05:15 AM
I bring special mix..sljivo-hypnol...very good

lol...

Flunitraze"plum"!!!

aphex... the final frontier....

aphex
04-11-2011, 05:16 AM
lol...

aphex... the final frontier....

:):):):)
........

Gorecki
04-11-2011, 05:19 AM
Aphex. LEGENDA!

aphex
04-11-2011, 05:25 AM
Aphex. LEGENDA!

Gotta love Gorecki : - )

powerangle
04-11-2011, 05:45 AM
The King would bagel everyone and stay undeafeted the whole period.(2004-2007)
Murray would atleast win 3 hardcourt gs. Solderling would get away with one grandslam (French Open).
The same goes for Del Potro as for Murray winning atleast 3 hardcourt grandslams.

I believe that today's top 5 ( Del Potro included) would completely dominate the tour. ( 2004-2007)

I disagree. If we were to take Fedal out of the picture, players from the 2004-2007 era would win more slams as well, and the resumes would be similar. Ie...Roddick would have another US Open and a couple of Wimbledons, and Hewitt would have another US Open and Wimbledon. And I don't think today's lot would necessarily dominate either.

The top players from 2004-2007 would have the clear advantage on grass, players from today would have the clear advantage on clay, and it would be close on hard courts.

In any case, not a huge difference as some make it out to be.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 06:31 AM
I disagree. If we were to take Fedal out of the picture, players from the 2004-2007 era would win more slams as well, and the resumes would be similar. Ie...Roddick would have another US Open and a couple of Wimbledons, and Hewitt would have another US Open and Wimbledon. And I don't think today's lot would necessarily dominate either.

The top players from 2004-2007 would have the clear advantage on grass, players from today would have the clear advantage on clay, and it would be close on hard courts.

In any case, not a huge difference as some make it out to be.

You can't be serious! Not a big difference? Send Nole back in time in his current form and he will wipe them all out. Murray wouldn't do as much dammage, but he sure would be #1.

T1000
04-11-2011, 07:47 AM
You can't be serious! Not a big difference? Send Nole back in time in his current form and he will wipe them all out. Murray wouldn't do as much dammage, but he sure would be #1.

Roddick already beats Djokovic now, have him face Roddick with an actual serve and forehand, the match would be over before Djokovic had a chance. Hewitt in his prime would wear down Joker, he would probably retire. Old man Ljubicic won a masters and is still hanging around, put him in his prime it's all over for the current top 5 now. Gonzo and Nalbandian were beasts back then and were also healthy. 04-07 was much stronger than today.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 07:59 AM
Roddick already beats Djokovic now, have him face Roddick with an actual serve and forehand, the match would be over before Djokovic had a chance. Hewitt in his prime would wear down Joker, he would probably retire. Old man Ljubicic won a masters and is still hanging around, put him in his prime it's all over for the current top 5 now. Gonzo and Nalbandian were beasts back then and were also healthy. 04-07 was much stronger than today.

Last time Roddick played Djokovic he lost in straghts. Imagine what the King would do.

Hewitt outgrinding the King??? Did you see what happend in Miami during a very hot day? Nadal can't do that anymore let alone Hewitt.

Nalbandian recieved a bagel and a breadstick on grass against Djokovic, enough said!

Do I really need to comment on Ljubicic, even he recieved a bagel from Djokovic.

NamRanger
04-11-2011, 09:55 AM
Last time Roddick played Djokovic he lost in straghts. Imagine what the King would do.

Hewitt outgrinding the King??? Did you see what happend in Miami during a very hot day? Nadal can't do that anymore let alone Hewitt.

Nalbandian recieved a bagel and a breadstick on grass against Djokovic, enough said!

Do I really need to comment on Ljubicic, even he recieved a bagel from Djokovic.




A Nalbandian that was clearly injured.



Roddick vs Djokovic would be close on HCs, neither guy would be able to break serve often so it comes down to crucial TBs.

Hewitt during his prime years was a very underrated player who was capable of beating some of the best players in the game. He could easily go toe to toe with Djokovic on faster HCs, and definitely beat him on grass.

Mustard
04-11-2011, 10:06 AM
Clearly Nadal. In 2005, one of Federer's best years, Nadal still managed a 79-10 win-loss record with 11 tournament victories, including a slam and 4 masters series titles. In 2006, Federer's best year ever, Nadal was responsible for 4 of Federer's 5 losses and won another slam plus 2 masters titles, as well as reaching a Wimbledon final. In 2007, Nadal continues to rule on the clay-courts and makes further inroads on Federer at Wimbledon, losing what was a winnable match. We know what happened in 2008, where Nadal overtook Federer.

MichaelNadal
04-11-2011, 10:24 AM
Clearly Nadal. In 2005, one of Federer's best years, Nadal still managed a 79-10 win-loss record with 11 tournament victories, including a slam and 4 masters series titles. In 2006, Federer's best year ever, Nadal was responsible for 4 of Federer's 5 losses and won another slam plus 2 masters titles, as well as reaching a Wimbledon final. In 2007, Nadal continues to rule on the clay-courts and makes further inroads on Federer at Wimbledon, losing what was a winnable match. We know what happened in 2008, where Nadal overtook Federer.

Strongly agree. It's really not even up for discussion.

cypher
04-11-2011, 10:25 AM
Yes, of course Nadal :)

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 10:28 AM
A Nalbandian that was clearly injured.



Roddick vs Djokovic would be close on HCs, neither guy would be able to break serve often so it comes down to crucial TBs.

Hewitt during his prime years was a very underrated player who was capable of beating some of the best players in the game. He could easily go toe to toe with Djokovic on faster HCs, and definitely beat him on grass.

I agree, it would be close against Djokovic, but against the King, it's a different story.

powerangle
04-11-2011, 02:12 PM
You can't be serious! Not a big difference? Send Nole back in time in his current form and he will wipe them all out. Murray wouldn't do as much dammage, but he sure would be #1.

I still disagree. If you want to take the King aka Djokovic's current best, then it is only fair to take Roddick at his best back in the day. And I would say it is close on hard courts.

Big advantages to Roddick on grass and Djokovic on clay. Not a big difference.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 02:28 PM
I still disagree. If you want to take the King aka Djokovic's current best, then it is only fair to take Roddick at his best back in the day. And I would say it is close on hard courts.

Big advantages to Roddick on grass and Djokovic on clay. Not a big difference.

Djokovic is now the best returner in the world, he wouldn't lose against a one dimensional Roddick. He may have one of the best serves on tour wich really is a big adventage on grass, but let's not forget how bad his volley skills are. Djokovic on the other hand has greatly improved his serve and volley skills.

jackson vile
04-11-2011, 02:47 PM
Roddick.

He consistently tried and he consistently failed.



The OP said RIVAL, Roddick did not rival Federer.

powerangle
04-11-2011, 02:58 PM
Djokovic is now the best returner in the world, he wouldn't lose against a one dimensional Roddick. He may have one of the best serves on tour wich really is a big adventage on grass, but let's not forget how bad his volley skills are. Djokovic on the other hand has greatly improved his serve and volley skills.

When Roddick is also playing at his best (and therefore serving his best), Djokovic would not be able to consistently put every single one of Roddick's serves into play in an offensive position. Roddick back in the day also had a big forehand too, not the pushy mess that he is today. The serve would already put Roddick at an advantage in his service games (if not outright aces or unreturnables), then his forehand would finish the job more often then not, or at least win the majority of points from the back of the court when on his service games.

Furthermore, Roddick doesn't need great volleys to do well at Wimbledon (look at Nadal, who excels at back court play). He could do well by staying in the back court (worked against everyone outside of Federer back in the day). Hard flat shots.

Even if Djokovic were slightly superior overall (which is debatable and I don't agree with), it is not a HUGE difference, as I have mentioned before. There is not a huge difference in the field as some people here like to make it out to be.

YodaKnowsBest
04-11-2011, 03:28 PM
When Roddick is also playing at his best (and therefore serving his best), Djokovic would not be able to consistently put every single one of Roddick's serves into play in an offensive position. Roddick back in the day also had a big forehand too, not the pushy mess that he is today. The serve would already put Roddick at an advantage in his service games, then his forehand would finish the job more often then not.

Furthermore, Roddick doesn't need great volleys to do well at Wimbledon (look at Nadal, who excels at back court play). He could do well by staying in the back court (worked against everyone outside of Federer back in the day). Hard flat shots.

Even if Djokovic were slightly superior overall (which is debatable and I don't agree with), it is not a HUGE difference, as I have mentioned before. There is not a huge difference in the field as some people here like to make it out to be.

Roddick himself stated that there is nothing wrong with his serve. Yes it has less power, but with a lot better placement, preventing other players to attack him. Roddick will need more than just a big serve and flat forehand to beat the King.

The reason why Nadal can stay behind the baseline for so long is because of his athletism. Roddick is no where near as fast and effective behind the baseline.

I agree with you on the last part. There might not be a big difference on grass, but on all other surfaces the King would prevail with ease. The King would certainly have more chance of winning a couple of WI titles than Federer would have on clay.

powerangle
04-11-2011, 04:11 PM
Roddick himself stated that there is nothing wrong with his serve. Yes it has less power, but with a lot better placement, preventing other players to attack him. Roddick will need more than just a big serve and flat forehand to beat the King.

The reason why Nadal can stay behind the baseline for so long is because of his athletism. Roddick is no where near as fast and effective behind the baseline.

I agree with you on the last part. There might not be a big difference on grass, but on all other surfaces the King would prevail with ease. The King would certainly have more chance of winning a couple of WI titles than Federer would have on clay.

I disagree. The only big difference would be on clay. On grass and fast hard courts, the scales tip in favor to Roddick when both players are at their best. Slower hard courts would go to Djokovic. A past-prime pushing Roddick was able to defeat a non-prime Djokovic, multiple times. If both were playing their best/at their primes, one can't say Djoko will automatically be better everywhere.

I don't see a big difference looking at the field today versus the field of 2004-2007. I can see why some think Djokovic overall is a better player/performer than Roddick (though I don't think by much) if you consider all surfaces, and I understand that and can see why. My point is that the overall field/competition today is not so much higher.

Tony48
04-11-2011, 08:58 PM
The OP said RIVAL, Roddick did not rival Federer.

Well the dictionary says that a rival is "one of two or more striving to reach or obtain something that only one can possess".....not the two of the most accomplished striving to obtain something. To me, that speaks more to H2H. So I took a look at Fed's H2H against Nadal, Roddick and Hewitt:

Federer vs. Nadal (2004-2007):
Meetings: 14
Grand Slams contested: 5
Grand Slam finals contested: 4

Federer vs. Roddick (2004-2007):
Meetings: 10
Grand Slams contested: 5
Grand Slam finals contested: 3

Federer vs. Hewitt (2004-2007):
Meetings: 11
Grand Slams contested: 5
Grand Slam finals contested: 1

I stand corrected. Seems like Nadal was indeed Federer's biggest rival. I'd give Roddick the slight edge for 2nd since they played more slam finals, and Hewitt would come in 3rd.

YodaKnowsBest
04-12-2011, 02:54 PM
I disagree. The only big difference would be on clay. On grass and fast hard courts, the scales tip in favor to Roddick when both players are at their best. Slower hard courts would go to Djokovic. A past-prime pushing Roddick was able to defeat a non-prime Djokovic, multiple times. If both were playing their best/at their primes, one can't say Djoko will automatically be better everywhere.

I don't see a big difference looking at the field today versus the field of 2004-2007. I can see why some think Djokovic overall is a better player/performer than Roddick (though I don't think by much) if you consider all surfaces, and I understand that and can see why. My point is that the overall field/competition today is not so much higher.

Someone who depends alot on his serve can only dream about a victory over the great King. The King is way talenter with more weapons and is also a better mover than Roddick.

Serve: Roddick
Return: Djokovic
Forehand: Even
Backhand: Djokovic
Volley: Djokovic
Dropshot/Lob: Djokovic
Speed: Djokovic
Stamina: Roddick

Best Offence: Djokovic because of the variety of weapons he can use.
Best Defence: Djokovic a great mover and can hit the ball well when on the run ,especially on the backside.

tennis_pro
04-12-2011, 03:56 PM
Someone who depends alot on his serve can only dream about a victory over the great King. The King is way talenter with more weapons and is also a better mover than Roddick.

Serve: Roddick
Return: Djokovic
Forehand: Even
Backhand: Djokovic
Volley: Djokovic
Dropshot/Lob: Djokovic
Speed: Djokovic
Stamina: Roddick

Best Offence: Djokovic because of the variety of weapons he can use.
Best Defence: Djokovic a great mover and can hit the ball well when on the run ,especially on the backside.

Are you kidding me? Djokovic can't even hit a flat forehand and you compare it to Roddick's? What crap.

Oh and best offence Roddick all the way. Djokovic has to outgrind every point to win it, Roddick wins (or used to win when at his best) the majority of his points in 2-3 punches

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 01:21 AM
Are you kidding me? Djokovic can't even hit a flat forehand and you compare it to Roddick's? What crap.

Oh and best offence Roddick all the way. Djokovic has to outgrind every point to win it, Roddick wins (or used to win when at his best) the majority of his points in 2-3 punches

Are you saying that Roddick's forehand is miles ahead of prime Djokovic's? You are delusional and a big failure just like prime Roddick.

The King has found his serve again and with it, he doesn't need to struggle every point, you troll. Like I said earlier Roddick may have one of the best serves out there, but he's up against the best returner in the world.

Prime Roddick will be remembered as a big failure who always came up short.
The King is simply unbeatable and out of reach for the clown.

Here enjoy some of the Djokovic forehand winners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE80FmF_jy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ2z6W3Hstk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLlIwmukh4&feature=related

powerangle
04-13-2011, 01:28 AM
Someone who depends alot on his serve can only dream about a victory over the great King. The King is way talenter with more weapons and is also a better mover than Roddick.

Serve: Roddick
Return: Djokovic
Forehand: Even
Backhand: Djokovic
Volley: Djokovic
Dropshot/Lob: Djokovic
Speed: Djokovic
Stamina: Roddick

Best Offence: Djokovic because of the variety of weapons he can use.
Best Defence: Djokovic a great mover and can hit the ball well when on the run ,especially on the backside.

If tennis were a bunch of X's and O's, then no need to even play a match. And I'd give Best Offence to Roddick since the serve is the most important shot in the game. And he has an offensive game to back it up.

powerangle
04-13-2011, 01:30 AM
Are you saying that Roddick's forehand is miles ahead of prime Djokovic's? You are delusional and a big failure just like prime Roddick.

The King has found his serve again and with it, he doesn't need to struggle every point, you troll. Like I said earlier Roddick may have one of the best serves out there, but he's up against the best returner in the world.

Prime Roddick will be remembered as a big failure who always came up short.
The King is simply unbeatable and out of reach for the clown.

Here enjoy some of the Djokovic forehand winners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE80FmF_jy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ2z6W3Hstk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLlIwmukh4&feature=related

Prime Roddick and "the King" have never met.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 01:38 AM
If tennis were a bunch of X's and O's, then no need to even play a match. And I'd give Best Offence to Roddick since the serve is the most important shot in the game. And he has an offensive game to back it up.

What??? There are 7 catogories in wich you can decide the best offence and Roddick wins only one of those and you proclaim him as the better one? This is ridiculous. I can't believe how hyped his forehand is by some of the trolls here. It's easy to put a shot away when it's not returned well. This won't be the case against the King.

powerangle
04-13-2011, 07:06 AM
What??? There are 7 catogories in wich you can decide the best offence and Roddick wins only one of those and you proclaim him as the better one? This is ridiculous. I can't believe how hyped his forehand is by some of the trolls here. It's easy to put a shot away when it's not returned well. This won't be the case against the King.

First of all, you can't give equal weight for all the categories. You can't just come up with a laundry list of shots and start adding them up as points without acknowledging that some shots are more important than others.

The serve has to be weighted the heaviest, as every single guy has to serve, at least 4 times during their service games. That shot is much more important than the drop shot/lob for example, which is utilized with way less frequency. If you actually factored in the significance of each category with proper prospective, Djokovic does not come out way ahead. So again, no big difference.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 07:10 AM
First of all, you can't give equal weight for all the categories. You can't just come up with a laundry list of shots and start adding them up as points without acknowledging that some shots are more important than others.

The serve has to be weighted the heaviest, as every single guy has to serve, at least 4 times during their service games. That shot is much more important than the drop shot/lob for example, which is utilized with way less frequency. If you actually factored in the significance of each category with proper prospective, Djokovic does not come out way ahead. So again, no big difference.

so you're admitting that Djokovic would come ahead but not by a far?

tennis_pro
04-13-2011, 07:30 AM
Are you saying that Roddick's forehand is miles ahead of prime Djokovic's? You are delusional and a big failure just like prime Roddick.

The King has found his serve again and with it, he doesn't need to struggle every point, you troll. Like I said earlier Roddick may have one of the best serves out there, but he's up against the best returner in the world.

Prime Roddick will be remembered as a big failure who always came up short.
The King is simply unbeatable and out of reach for the clown.

Here enjoy some of the Djokovic forehand winners.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TE80FmF_jy4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZ2z6W3Hstk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mLlIwmukh4&feature=related

And you think the 3 youtube links you provided are a proof that Djokovic has a better forehand than PRIME Roddick? Seriously, bro, stop trolling. I hope you'll cool down when Djokovic starts losing again which is gonna happen pretty soon.

powerangle
04-13-2011, 07:32 AM
so you're admitting that Djokovic would come ahead but not by a far?

If you actually read several of my previous posts (but apparently you don't), I already said that.

I disagree. If we were to take Fedal out of the picture, players from the 2004-2007 era would win more slams as well, and the resumes would be similar. Ie...Roddick would have another US Open and a couple of Wimbledons, and Hewitt would have another US Open and Wimbledon. And I don't think today's lot would necessarily dominate either.

The top players from 2004-2007 would have the clear advantage on grass, players from today would have the clear advantage on clay, and it would be close on hard courts.

In any case, not a huge difference as some make it out to be.

I still disagree. If you want to take the King aka Djokovic's current best, then it is only fair to take Roddick at his best back in the day. And I would say it is close on hard courts.

Big advantages to Roddick on grass and Djokovic on clay. Not a big difference.

When Roddick is also playing at his best (and therefore serving his best), Djokovic would not be able to consistently put every single one of Roddick's serves into play in an offensive position. Roddick back in the day also had a big forehand too, not the pushy mess that he is today. The serve would already put Roddick at an advantage in his service games (if not outright aces or unreturnables), then his forehand would finish the job more often then not, or at least win the majority of points from the back of the court when on his service games.

Furthermore, Roddick doesn't need great volleys to do well at Wimbledon (look at Nadal, who excels at back court play). He could do well by staying in the back court (worked against everyone outside of Federer back in the day). Hard flat shots.

Even if Djokovic were slightly superior overall (which is debatable and I don't agree with), it is not a HUGE difference, as I have mentioned before. There is not a huge difference in the field as some people here like to make it out to be.

I disagree. The only big difference would be on clay. On grass and fast hard courts, the scales tip in favor to Roddick when both players are at their best. Slower hard courts would go to Djokovic. A past-prime pushing Roddick was able to defeat a non-prime Djokovic, multiple times. If both were playing their best/at their primes, one can't say Djoko will automatically be better everywhere.

I don't see a big difference looking at the field today versus the field of 2004-2007. I can see why some think Djokovic overall is a better player/performer than Roddick (though I don't think by much) if you consider all surfaces, and I understand that and can see why. My point is that the overall field/competition today is not so much higher.

First of all, you can't give equal weight for all the categories. You can't just come up with a laundry list of shots and start adding them up as points without acknowledging that some shots are more important than others.

The serve has to be weighted the heaviest, as every single guy has to serve, at least 4 times during their service games. That shot is much more important than the drop shot/lob for example, which is utilized with way less frequency. If you actually factored in the significance of each category with proper prospective, Djokovic does not come out way ahead. So again, no big difference.

There, I bolded the parts for you. Again, Djokovic may come out ahead, but it's not a big difference. But you were belaboring that "the King" is oh so much better and how they're not even close. My point is that therefore there is also no big difference between the fields of 2004-2007 and the field today, which some people claim are not even close.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 07:39 AM
Roddick has fail written all over him. How can you compare the King with some one slam wonder? A clown who was lucky enough to win one slam during a weak era.

powerangle
04-13-2011, 07:42 AM
Roddick has fail written all over him. How can you compare the King with some one slam wonder? A clown who was lucky enough to win one slam during a weak era.

How was it a weak era? Give statements that back it up. Show where today's competition is far ahead of 2004-2007.

powerangle
04-13-2011, 07:43 AM
I also notice that you conveniently ignored that I called you out for failing to read my previous posts where I already said that Djokovic may come out ahead, but not by far. Interesting.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 07:46 AM
If you actually read several of my previous posts (but apparently you don't), I already said that.











There, I bolded the parts for you. Again, Djokovic may come out ahead, but it's not a big difference. But you were belaboring that "the King" is oh so much better and how they're not even close. My point is that therefore there is also no big difference between the fields of 2004-2007 and the field today, which some people claim are not even close.

What is wrong with you people? :confused: He has a serve, but everything else is below average, except for the forehand maybe.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 07:48 AM
I also notice that you conveniently ignored that I called you out for failing to read my previous posts where I already said that Djokovic may come out ahead, but not by far. Interesting.

You don't win matches with offence only. The King is also a great defender, unlike Roddick.

tennis_pro
04-13-2011, 08:02 AM
Roddick has fail written all over him. How can you compare the King with some one slam wonder? A clown who was lucky enough to win one slam during a weak era.

Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko all in their primes (except Agassi but Andre was still tough at 30+) compared to today's Nadal, Djokovic, Murray who can't win a set in a Slam final or Del Potro who was out for a full year and there's a possibility he won't be back to his best. Gimme a break Soderling at no 4? Berdych at no 6? Verdasco in the top 10?

Btw Roddick leads the h2h 5-3 against Djokovic.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 08:24 AM
Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko all in their primes (except Agassi but Andre was still tough at 30+) compared to today's Nadal, Djokovic, Murray who can't win a set in a Slam final or Del Potro who was out for a full year and there's a possibility he won't be back to his best. Gimme a break Soderling at no 4? Berdych at no 6? Verdasco in the top 10?

Btw Roddick leads the h2h 5-3 against Djokovic.

Nalbandian was not in his prime against Roddick during the USO 2003, not only that Nalbandian also got robbed on match point. In the final he met Ferrero who's nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists. Roddick was lucky enough to win one slam.

Safin was not consistent enough during that period. Injuries and fine ladies have always been his weakness.

Coria one of the biggest mental midgets out there. He was also tested positive for nandrolone. Hey, didn't Agassi also use drugs? :lol:

Davydenko was a nobody and still is.

YodaKnowsBest
04-13-2011, 08:40 AM
Hewitt, Agassi, Safin, Roddick, Ferrero, Coria, Nalbandian, Davydenko all in their primes (except Agassi but Andre was still tough at 30+) compared to today's Nadal, Djokovic, Murray who can't win a set in a Slam final or Del Potro who was out for a full year and there's a possibility he won't be back to his best. Gimme a break Soderling at no 4? Berdych at no 6? Verdasco in the top 10?

Btw Roddick leads the h2h 5-3 against Djokovic.

Murray leads the h2h against Federer. Does it make him a better player? No, you troll!

powerangle
04-13-2011, 10:29 AM
What is wrong with you people? :confused: He has a serve, but everything else is below average, except for the forehand maybe.

Tennis is not just about stroke for stroke, it's about how effective your overall game, whatever it is, against your competition. Roddick's game was very effective on fast courts. And today's competition is not any better, or at least significantly better, than from 2004-2007. If you take Fedal out, who from today is significantly better? You say Djokovic (whom I don't agree is significantly better). But then who else? Who else from today is better than prime Roddick or prime Hewitt? Explain how today's field is leaps and bounds better.

NamRanger
04-13-2011, 03:02 PM
Nalbandian was not in his prime against Roddick during the USO 2003, not only that Nalbandian also got robbed on match point. In the final he met Ferrero who's nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists. Roddick was lucky enough to win one slam.

Safin was not consistent enough during that period. Injuries and fine ladies have always been his weakness.

Coria one of the biggest mental midgets out there. He was also tested positive for nandrolone. Hey, didn't Agassi also use drugs? :lol:

Davydenko was a nobody and still is.




ROFL. GJ convincing anyone not biased that one.



Tennis is not just about stroke for stroke, it's about how effective your overall game, whatever it is, against your competition. Roddick's game was very effective on fast courts. And today's competition is not any better, or at least significantly better, than from 2004-2007. If you take Fedal out, who from today is significantly better? You say Djokovic (whom I don't agree is significantly better). But then who else? Who else from today is better than prime Roddick or prime Hewitt? Explain how today's field is leaps and bounds better.



Prime Roddick and Hewitt would roll Djokovic at Wimbledon and likely be favored to beat Djokovic at the USO. The AO and FO Djokovic has the advantage, but it's not so big that it is insurmountable. Remember, Roddick and Hewitt have met prime Federer at the USO and Wimbledon and were able to stay with him in very competitive matches.


Djokovic had trouble putting away a well past his prime Federer at the USO. I seriously doubt Djokovic would be able to take Roddick or Hewitt at Wimbledon, and I'd put Roddick and Hewitt around 6:4 favorites at the USO over Djokovic if both players were in their respective primes (simply because Roddick's serve/forehand combo would give Djokovic no rhythm, and I think Hewitt would be able to out move Djokovic).

tennis_pro
04-13-2011, 03:10 PM
Murray leads the h2h against Federer. Does it make him a better player? No, you troll!

Actually Federer is 6 years older than Murray so a negative h2h given that they played almost all of their matches after 2008 (which is reputedly the beginning of Federer's decline and Murray's prime) doesn't mean much, especially since Federer beat him twice very convincingly when it mattered most.

Roddick is 5-3 against Djokovic even though they played every single match after 2007 which obviously favored Djokovic. And they are 1-1 in Slams.

So once again EPIC FAILURE.

tennis_pro
04-13-2011, 03:17 PM
Nalbandian was not in his prime against Roddick during the USO 2003, not only that Nalbandian also got robbed on match point. In the final he met Ferrero who's nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists. Roddick was lucky enough to win one slam.

Safin was not consistent enough during that period. Injuries and fine ladies have always been his weakness.

Coria one of the biggest mental midgets out there. He was also tested positive for nandrolone. Hey, didn't Agassi also use drugs? :lol:

Davydenko was a nobody and still is.

1)Nalbandian's best years were 2002-2006, so once again fail.
2)Ferrero - nothing but a joke? I won't even comment on that you ignorant goof
3) For such an inconsistant guy like Safin, he still managed to win 2 Slams, reach 2 more finals + several other semis, quarters, win 5 masters shields, 15 titles in total, all in 2000-2005 (and he was out for a full year in 2003). Not to mention he has a 2-0 h2h over Djokovic.
4) Coria one of the biggest mental midgets out there? Based on 1 unlucky match? Agassi using drugs is such a cheap shot, since we all know it didn't affect his game AT ALL, not only that, he played the worst crap after using it. It all happened in 1997 and we're talking about the Federer generation which is 2002-2007 and he was as clear as a feather
5) Davydenko a joke? Who's Nadal, then?

powerangle
04-13-2011, 08:45 PM
Prime Roddick and Hewitt would roll Djokovic at Wimbledon and likely be favored to beat Djokovic at the USO. The AO and FO Djokovic has the advantage, but it's not so big that it is insurmountable. Remember, Roddick and Hewitt have met prime Federer at the USO and Wimbledon and were able to stay with him in very competitive matches.


Djokovic had trouble putting away a well past his prime Federer at the USO. I seriously doubt Djokovic would be able to take Roddick or Hewitt at Wimbledon, and I'd put Roddick and Hewitt around 6:4 favorites at the USO over Djokovic if both players were in their respective primes (simply because Roddick's serve/forehand combo would give Djokovic no rhythm, and I think Hewitt would be able to out move Djokovic).

Yeah but have fun trying to convince Yodaman of that.

Sid_Vicious
04-13-2011, 08:54 PM
Nalbandian was not in his prime against Roddick during the USO 2003, not only that Nalbandian also got robbed on match point. In the final he met Ferrero who's nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists. Roddick was lucky enough to win one slam.

Safin was not consistent enough during that period. Injuries and fine ladies have always been his weakness.

Coria one of the biggest mental midgets out there. He was also tested positive for nandrolone. Hey, didn't Agassi also use drugs? :lol:

Davydenko was a nobody and still is.

Ferrero nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists? lol like Tsonga, Murray, Soderling, and Berdych?

Did you start watching tennis in 2008?

MichaelNadal
04-13-2011, 09:07 PM
Ferrero nothing but a joke compared to this era's finalists? lol like Tsonga, Murray, Soderling, and Berdych?

Did you start watching tennis in 2008?

I think most of this board did :(

NadalAgassi
04-13-2011, 09:26 PM
I agree this era isnt really any different than the mid 2000s. I would say it isnt significantly better or worse, just about the same. Both are much stronger than the lowest points of the mens game in say 1998 and 2002, but nowhere near as strong as some of the fields past.

In anycase a field that has guys like Berdych and Soderling making top 5 is not stronger than a field with guys like Roddick in the top 5. Roddick in his prime is in fact a much stronger player than either of those two will ever likely be. And Verdasco staying in the top 10 for over 2 years should be enough to snuff out any improved era talk.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 08:17 AM
I feel surrounded by trolls trying to convince me that Roddick would own the King. Has roddick even won 2 masters in a row? Has he ever defended a title??? Djokovic is 23 and has already achieved so much compared to that failure.

Dilettante
04-15-2011, 08:20 AM
I love how he always says "The King" instead of Djokovic. It's like an Elvis' groupie on hysterical tears.

Semi-Pro
04-15-2011, 08:23 AM
I feel surrounded by trolls trying to convince me that Roddick would own the King. Has roddick even won 2 masters in a row? Has he ever defended a title??? Djokovic is 23 and has already achieved so much compared to that failure.

He actually did the Djokovic triple except it was the summer HC season (Canada, Cincy + US open)

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 08:32 AM
He actually did the Djokovic triple except it was the summer HC season (Canada, Cincy + US open)

Triple? The King has won 4 titles, defeating Federer 3 times and the fake nr one, 2 times in a row.
btw could you tell me who Roddick defeated during those 3 tourneys? :lol:

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 09:06 AM
Triple? The King has won 4 titles, defeating Federer 3 times and the fake nr one, 2 times in a row.
btw could you tell me who Roddick defeated during those 3 tourneys? :lol:

2003 Canada Masters - Nalbandian, Federer
2003 Cincinnati Masters - Verdasco, Ljubicic, Blake in consecutive matches
2003 US Open - Henman, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Ferrero

so it's not like he faced newbies

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 09:14 AM
2003 Canada Masters - Nalbandian, Federer
2003 Cincinnati Masters - Verdasco, Ljubicic, Blake in consecutive matches
2003 US Open - Henman, Ljubicic, Nalbandian, Ferrero

so it's not like he faced newbies

This is were I almost spilled my drink. Please warn me next time before you accidently kill me.

Tony48
04-15-2011, 03:17 PM
ROFL. GJ convincing anyone not biased that one.

Prime Roddick and Hewitt would roll Djokovic at Wimbledon and likely be favored to beat Djokovic at the USO. The AO and FO Djokovic has the advantage, but it's not so big that it is insurmountable. Remember, Roddick and Hewitt have met prime Federer at the USO and Wimbledon and were able to stay with him in very competitive matches.


Djokovic had trouble putting away a well past his prime Federer at the USO. I seriously doubt Djokovic would be able to take Roddick or Hewitt at Wimbledon, and I'd put Roddick and Hewitt around 6:4 favorites at the USO over Djokovic if both players were in their respective primes (simply because Roddick's serve/forehand combo would give Djokovic no rhythm, and I think Hewitt would be able to out move Djokovic).

LOL and then all of a sudden, the ***** declare that Federer at the WTF was prime, vintage NinjaFed! Didn't know that prime could be turned on and off like that. Maybe Federer is actually a magical wizard!

Federer is only in/out of prime when its convenient.

US Open - out of prime....because he lost.
WTF - prime....because he won!

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:21 PM
This is were I almost spilled my drink. Please warn me next time before you accidently kill me.

Believe it or not, Verdasco is NOT an easy 1st round opponent

Btw how can you explain the fact that Djokovic lost the last 2 match vs Verdasco and barely leads the h2h 5-4?

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:24 PM
LOL and then all of a sudden, the ***** declare that Federer at the WTF was prime, vintage NinjaFed! Didn't know that prime could be turned on and off like that. Maybe Federer is actually a magical wizard!

Federer is only in/out of prime when its convenient.

US Open - out of prime....because he lost.
WTF - prime....because he won!

Federer's not in his prime since 2007, the last time he was at his career best was in early 2007, he still can produce super high standard play but on a less and less consistant level, tho

Tony48
04-15-2011, 03:28 PM
Federer's not in his prime since 2007, the last time he was at his career best was in early 2007, he still can produce super high standard play but on a less and less consistant level, tho

Hmmm....so what happened in 2009 when he won the French Open and Wimbledon?....something he's NEVER done before, even in your time frame of his alleged prime.

Maybe there's something to that "Federer's competition was pathetic" theory after all.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:31 PM
Hmmm....so what happened in 2009 when he won the French Open and Wimbledon?....something he's NEVER done before, even in your time frame of his alleged prime.

Maybe there's something to that "Federer's competition was pathetic" theory after all.

The poll says it all... ~ 18 year old Nadal was his biggest threat. :lol: :lol: :lol: One dimensional Roddick was not far behind him.

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:32 PM
Hmmm....so what happened in 2009 when he won the French Open and Wimbledon?....something he's NEVER done before, even in your time frame of his alleged prime.

Maybe there's something to that "Federer's competition was pathetic" theory after all.

To be honest, Federer was as lucky avoiding Nadal in the FO and Wimbledon as he was unlucky playing him in both tournaments in the previous 3 years. 2009 is definately not Federer's prime.

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:33 PM
The poll says it all... ~ 18 year old Nadal was his biggest threat. :lol: :lol: :lol: One dimensional Roddick was not far behind him.

What does it say about Djokovic having a 3-5 h2h against such a one-dimensional player?

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:35 PM
Believe it or not, Verdasco is NOT an easy 1st round opponent

Btw how can you explain the fact that Djokovic lost the last 2 match vs Verdasco and barely leads the h2h 5-4?

That was during the clay season when Djokovic had to retire because of allergy. He retired in Serbia and had to skip Madrid.

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:35 PM
Hmmm....so what happened in 2009 when he won the French Open and Wimbledon?....something he's NEVER done before, even in your time frame of his alleged prime.

Maybe there's something to that "Federer's competition was pathetic" theory after all.

Btw that would mean that the competition was weaker after 2008 since Federer at his seemingly best years couldn't win the French Open and did so in 2009 at nearly 28 years of age.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:36 PM
What does it say about Djokovic having a 3-5 h2h against such a one-dimensional player?

It just shows how big Djokovic's slump really was. He was losing against nobodies, not only against Roddick. :lol:

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:37 PM
That was during the clay season when Djokovic had to retire because of allergy. He retired in Serbia and had to skip Madrid.

who cares? if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:39 PM
It just shows how big Djokovic's slump really was. He was losing against nodbodys, not only against Roddick. :lol:

Oh yea?

How do you explain this loss, then?

Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open - CHAMPION
Dubai - LOST TO RODDICK
Indian Wells - CHAMPION

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:39 PM
who cares? if you make a decision to play, there are no excuses unless you actually retire in a match showing VISIBLE pain, Djokovic got his a** handed to him by that "clown" Verdasco twice in a row

Fair enough, will you please not use mono as an excuse anymore? :lol:

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:41 PM
It just shows how big Djokovic's slump really was. He was losing against nobodies, not only against Roddick. :lol:

What crap. In fact, 2 out of his 3 wins over Roddick were when Roddick was in a slump (2008 US Open - 2008 was Roddick's worst year in 2002-2010) or just played total crap (2010 Masters Cup - Andy lost all 3 matches, even against Berdych).

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:44 PM
Fair enough, will you please not use mono as an excuse anymore? :lol:

Everybody uses double standards.

*********s usually say how lucky Federer was to win the French and Wimbledon in 2009 but they seem to forget how Nadal got to no 1 in the first place when Federer was sick during the bigger part of 2008 and had a back injury in late 2008/early 2009.

You, on the other, bring up some weird excuses which I've never heard of before.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:45 PM
Oh yea?

How do you explain this loss, then?

Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open - CHAMPION
Dubai - LOST TO RODDICK
Indian Wells - CHAMPION

Djokovic had an off-day spraying so many UE while Roddick was playing his best tennis. I have never said that Djokovic is unbeatable. ;) There is a huge difference between Djokovic and the King.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:47 PM
Everybody uses double standards.

*********s usually say how lucky Federer was to win the French and Wimbledon in 2009 but they seem to forget how Nadal got to no 1 in the first place when Federer was sick during the bigger part of 2008 and had a back injury in late 2008/early 2009.

You, on the other, bring up some weird excuses which I've never heard of before.

and wich excuse would that be?

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:47 PM
Djokovic had an off-day spraying so many UE while Roddick was playing his best tennis. I have never said that Djokovic is unbeatable. ;) There is a huge difference between Djokovic and the King.

There's no such thing as the King. He's gonna fall down off his "throne" before he even got to sit on it.

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:49 PM
and wich excuse would that be?

"That was during the clay season when Djokovic had to retire because of allergy"


I'm curious, what kind of allergy youre talking about?

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:52 PM
"That was during the clay season when Djokovic had to retire because of allergy"


I'm curious, what kind of allergy youre talking about?

Are you serious? Why do you think he was breathing so heavily in MC?
He retired in Serbia and skipped Madrid for a reason. Everyone knows this.

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 03:54 PM
Are you serious? Why do you think he was breathing so heavily in MC?
He retired in Serbia and skipped Madrid for a reason. Everyone knows this.

Allergies don't just come and go, you either have one or not. Why didn't they affect his game in other seasons?

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 03:58 PM
Allergies don't just come and go, you either have one or not. Why didn't they affect his game in other seasons?

because he has allergies to pollen. You can now guess why it didn't affect him in other seasons. ;)

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 04:09 PM
because he has allergies to pollen. You can now guess why it didn't affect him in other seasons. ;)

I won't. Roddick summed him up in 1 sentence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgWoOon8-w

tenis1
04-15-2011, 04:19 PM
I won't. Roddick summed him up in 1 sentence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPgWoOon8-w

As someone said, you don't make fun of other people health problems and don't mess with karma. Fast forward two and a half years and Djokovic is undefeated, won AO, IW, Miami, while Roddick has "breathing problems" of all things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9dMZ6fO1zI

tennis_pro
04-15-2011, 04:28 PM
As someone said, you don't make fun of other people health problems and don't mess with karma. Fast forward two and a half years and Djokovic is undefeated, won AO, IW, Miami, while Roddick has "breathing problems" of all things:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9dMZ6fO1zI

Since when I'm making fun of Djokovic's health problems? All I'm saying is that when "health issues" are overused they sound like excuses.

If you're on court that means you're fit enough to play. End of story. Nobody cares later on who had issues so if you decide to play, shut the f up and do your job. That goes to Nadal as well who has new excuses after every less.

tenis1
04-15-2011, 04:38 PM
Since when I'm making fun of Djokovic's health problems? All I'm saying is that when "health issues" are overused they sound like excuses.

If you're on court that means you're fit enough to play. End of story. Nobody cares later on who had issues so if you decide to play, shut the f up and do your job. That goes to Nadal as well who has new excuses after every less.

I am talking about Roddick making fun of Djokovic's health problems, not you. Although saying "Roddick summed him up in 1 sentence" comes close.
Djokovic has real allergy/asthma/breathing issues which affect him, believe it or not. It is not as simple as "If you're on court that means you're fit enough to play. End of story" Things are not always black and white as you are tying to imply.

Anyway, if you want it your "shut the f up and do your job" way than I guess it apples for Roddick in Miami 2011, Federer with supposed Mono in AO 2008 and back problems later, Nadal with injured knee in FO 2009, and so on and so on. There is no reason to single out Djokovic. You are the one using double standards here.

powerangle
04-15-2011, 04:40 PM
I feel surrounded by trolls trying to convince me that Roddick would own the King. Has roddick even won 2 masters in a row? Has he ever defended a title??? Djokovic is 23 and has already achieved so much compared to that failure.

I think you're the one that's trolling by making up things such as "that Roddick would own the King". Where have I said that Roddick would "own" Djokovic? Have I not said that it's a fairly close comparison with Djokovic having the edge? Stooping to gross exagerration/hyperbole when you can't win an argument? Making things up out of thin air?

And you STILL have not shown why today's field is so much better than 2004-2007. Are you basing it solely off of Djokovic? You don't have any other means to support your stance?

powerangle
04-15-2011, 04:42 PM
Hmmm....so what happened in 2009 when he won the French Open and Wimbledon?....something he's NEVER done before, even in your time frame of his alleged prime.

Maybe there's something to that "Federer's competition was pathetic" theory after all.

One can still win tournaments, even big ones, when one is out of his prime. The winning rate, performance, and consistency in execution versus the rest of the field is just lower. Federer was the 2nd best clay courter at the time, and with Nadal eliminated, Federer came through. It's not rocket science.

Dilettante
04-15-2011, 04:48 PM
It's still a little concerning when a 18 year old kid who is no where near his prime is Federer's biggest rival. ( according to you)
What does this tell you about the rest of the field?

Borg won his first slam at 17, so did Becker, what did it say about the rest of the field?

Are you basing it solely off of Djokovic?

Yes he does. He can't even say Djokovic, he says "the King", so obviously he shapes reality around his irrational worship of Djoker.

I'm sure he's already thinking of strange arguments to try to persuade the world that Djokovic is the GOAT without the need of Nole winning a number near to 16 slams, which pretty much won't likely happen.

YodaKnowsBest
04-15-2011, 06:04 PM
I think you're the one that's trolling by making up things such as "that Roddick would own the King". Where have I said that Roddick would "own" Djokovic? Have I not said that it's a fairly close comparison with Djokovic having the edge? Stooping to gross exagerration/hyperbole when you can't win an argument? Making things up out of thin air?

And you STILL have not shown why today's field is so much better than 2004-2007. Are you basing it solely off of Djokovic? You don't have any other means to support your stance?

You are right, you never said that Roddick is miles ahead of Djokovic, but you're not the only one defending Roddick here.

I believe consistency is the key here. Djokovic has been in the top 3 for quite some time now. (4 years) Murray has been beating the top 3 regurarly since 2008. This is his 4th year being in the top 4. Outside the top 4 we have other players who can win grandslams like Del Potro.

Now lets look back at 2004-2007

2004:

1.Roger Federer (11 titles)
-huge gap
2.Andy Roddick (4 titles)
3.Lleyton Hewitt (4 titles)
4.Marat Safin (3 titles) (very talented, but not consistent enough)

2005:

1.Roger Federer (12 titles)
2.Rafael Nadal (11 titles)
- huge gap
3.Lleyton Hewitt (1 title)
4.Andy Roddick (5 titles)

Baby Nadal ranked 2nd. :lol:

2006:

1.Federer, Roger (12 titles)
2.Nadal, Rafael (5 titles)
- huge gap
3.Davydenko, Nikolay (3 titles)
4.Blake, James (2 titles) :oops: Where is Roddick during his prime?

What now Jame Blakes prime is also close to Novak's? :lol:

2007:

1.Federer, Roger (8 titles)
2.Nadal, Rafael (6 titles)
3.Djokovic, Novak (5 titles)
-huge gap
4.Davydenko, Nikolay (1 titles)

Baby Djokovic entering the top 3. Federer's titles dramatically decreases. :lol:

The top 4 of this era are more consistent and way more talented than the previous one.

powerangle
04-15-2011, 10:58 PM
You are right, you never said that Roddick is miles ahead of Djokovic, but you're not the only one defending Roddick here.

I believe consistency is the key here. Djokovic has been in the top 3 for quite some time now. (4 years) Murray has been beating the top 3 regurarly since 2008. This is his 4th year being in the top 4. Outside the top 4 we have other players who can win grandslams like Del Potro.

Now lets look back at 2004-2007

2004:

1.Roger Federer (11 titles)
-huge gap
2.Andy Roddick (4 titles)
3.Lleyton Hewitt (4 titles)
4.Marat Safin (3 titles) (very talented, but not consistent enough)

2005:

1.Roger Federer (12 titles)
2.Rafael Nadal (11 titles)
- huge gap
3.Lleyton Hewitt (1 title)
4.Andy Roddick (5 titles)

Baby Nadal ranked 2nd. :lol:

2006:

1.Federer, Roger (12 titles)
2.Nadal, Rafael (5 titles)
- huge gap
3.Davydenko, Nikolay (3 titles)
4.Blake, James (2 titles) :oops: Where is Roddick during his prime?

What now Jame Blakes prime is also close to Novak's? :lol:

2007:

1.Federer, Roger (8 titles)
2.Nadal, Rafael (6 titles)
3.Djokovic, Novak (5 titles)
-huge gap
4.Davydenko, Nikolay (1 titles)

Baby Djokovic entering the top 3. Federer's titles dramatically decreases. :lol:

The top 4 of this era are more consistent and way more talented than the previous one.

But now that's a Catch 22 isn't it? Maybe other players didn't win as many titles back then because Federer was that much better than the rest? Federer denied a lot of those players in 2004-2007 from boosting their year-end title counts.

One can also say that Murray is so "consistently" in the top 4 because the best of the rest "suck" relatively these days (not saying the field today sucks, but to make a point that things aren't always mutually exclusive). What if Roddick's prime were in these recent years? Then who knows, perhaps maybe Murray wouldn't be so consistently in the top 4.

mandy01
04-15-2011, 11:30 PM
But now that's a Catch 22 isn't it? Maybe other players didn't win as many titles back then because Federer was that much better than the rest? Federer denied a lot of those players in 2004-2007 from boosting their year-end title counts.

One can also say that Murray is so "consistently" in the top 4 because the best of the rest "suck" relatively these days (not saying the field today sucks, but to make a point that things aren't always mutually exclusive). What if Roddick's prime were in these recent years? Then who knows, perhaps maybe Murray wouldn't be so consistently in the top 4.
Besides,save 2011 Djokovic has barely denied Fed too many titles.He's doing well in a year in which Roger is significantly worse.Overall,the decline in Roger's titles has definitely more to do with him than with anything Djokovic has done.And lets not forget that just last year Roger beat him three straight times.So the whole 'correlation' gj is trying to come up with is pretty much baseless.

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 01:30 AM
But now that's a Catch 22 isn't it? Maybe other players didn't win as many titles back then because Federer was that much better than the rest? Federer denied a lot of those players in 2004-2007 from boosting their year-end title counts.

One can also say that Murray is so "consistently" in the top 4 because the best of the rest "suck" relatively these days (not saying the field today sucks, but to make a point that things aren't always mutually exclusive). What if Roddick's prime were in these recent years? Then who knows, perhaps maybe Murray wouldn't be so consistently in the top 4.


Are you blind? I gave you the statics wich showed a decline in Federer's succes as soon as baby Djokovic entered the top 3. I didn't even know James Blake was ranked 4th in 2006. What a ****** competition it must have been and the funny part is, Roddick wasn't even in the top 5.

The competition was weak. Djokovic and Nadal have both prooved it by sneaking into the top 3, my thanks also goes to James Blake. :oops:

You can't say that Murray sucks, because unlike Roddick, baby Murray has defeated a prime Federer. :lol: Do you now realize how much of a failure Roddick is? 20-2 man, 20-2...

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 01:37 AM
Besides,save 2011 Djokovic has barely denied Fed too many titles.He's doing well in a year in which Roger is significantly worse.Overall,the decline in Roger's titles has definitely more to do with him than with anything Djokovic has done.And lets not forget that just last year Roger beat him three straight times.So the whole 'correlation' gj is trying to come up with is pretty much baseless.

Djokovic was struggling against everyone last year. He had more double faults than first serves. :lol: And I'm not gj, but I can tell you that he's amongst us right now. ;)

mandy01
04-16-2011, 01:41 AM
Djokovic was struggling against everyone last year. He had more double faults than first serves. :lol: And I'm not gj, but I can tell you that he's amongst us right now. ;)Djokovic has struggled against a number of players every year except this one.He couldn't defend a single title up until last year.Thanks for playing.

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 03:08 AM
Djokovic has struggled against a number of players every year except this one.He couldn't defend a single title up until last year.Thanks for playing.

No problem, I would play with you any time.

aphex
04-16-2011, 03:18 AM
No problem, I would play with you any time.

Just please refrain from playing with yourself all the time in your djokoshrine.
Your constant "excitement" is obvious and cringeworthy.

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 03:21 AM
Just please refrain from playing with yourself all the time in your djokoshrine.
Your constant "excitement" is obvious and cringeworthy.

Please, don't hate me because of someone else's succes. :lol:

aphex
04-16-2011, 03:23 AM
Please, don't hate me because of someone else's succes. :lol:

Please don't play with yourself because of someone else's success.
You have nothing to do with it.

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 03:28 AM
Please don't play with yourself because of someone else's success.
You have nothing to do with it.

Actually I'm more pleased with Federer's fail than Djokovic's succes. :lol: :lol:

It took me ages to clean my room after this scene.

http://www.gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1423517&t=o (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1423517/federer-cries.html) GIFSoup (http://www.gifsoup.com/)

tennis_pro
04-16-2011, 05:09 AM
Actually I'm more pleased with Federer's fail than Djokovic's succes. :lol: :lol:

It took me ages to clean my room after this scene.

http://www.gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=1423517&t=o (http://www.gifsoup.com/view/1423517/federer-cries.html) GIFSoup (http://www.gifsoup.com/)


my god dont you have better things to do?

YodaKnowsBest
04-16-2011, 07:36 AM
But now that's a Catch 22 isn't it? Maybe other players didn't win as many titles back then because Federer was that much better than the rest? Federer denied a lot of those players in 2004-2007 from boosting their year-end title counts.

One can also say that Murray is so "consistently" in the top 4 because the best of the rest "suck" relatively these days (not saying the field today sucks, but to make a point that things aren't always mutually exclusive). What if Roddick's prime were in these recent years? Then who knows, perhaps maybe Murray wouldn't be so consistently in the top 4.

Don't you dare to write Roddick's and Murray's name in the same sentence ever again. Murray is legend.

Edit: I reread your post and found out you never did wrote them in the same sentence. :lol:

lemon
04-16-2011, 08:21 AM
All the rivals were jokes comparing to him. Next question.

powerangle
04-16-2011, 09:54 AM
Are you blind? I gave you the statics wich showed a decline in Federer's succes as soon as baby Djokovic entered the top 3. I didn't even know James Blake was ranked 4th in 2006. What a ****** competition it must have been and the funny part is, Roddick wasn't even in the top 5.

The competition was weak. Djokovic and Nadal have both prooved it by sneaking into the top 3, my thanks also goes to James Blake. :oops:

You can't say that Murray sucks, because unlike Roddick, baby Murray has defeated a prime Federer. :lol: Do you now realize how much of a failure Roddick is? 20-2 man, 20-2...

Can you read? I said that things aren't always mutually exclusive. The fact that Djokovic got better ("baby Djokovic" as you put it) doesn't mean that Federer didn't also get worse. Federer after 2007 Australian Open already started to have a string of bad losses. Back to back losses to Canas? Loss to Volandri?

Djokovic was only responsible for one of Fed's losses that year, so Fed's dramatic decrease in title count was due to losing to several other players as well.

And on an extension of things not being mutually exclusive, what does Blake's great results in 2006 have to do with anything? Blake was at his peak play in 2006, playing great offensive tennis (being more mentally strong and without being shanktastic like today). Who knows what it would be like if he played the same level today? Maybe he would be top 4 as well.

Furthermore, Hewitt's prime was even earlier than Fed's prime, though there was some overlap, and if he had still been playing to the best of his capabilities, could have also displaced Murray from the top 4.

Things in life and/or tennis often happen for a multitude of reasons, not just because of one single factor time and time again. It is not a mutually exclusive black and white type of world.

Also, I've only ever listed thing as "could" or "maybe" or "perhaps". I never said either era was a lot better than the other, just that we can't compare directly, and we won't know what would happen if we mixed things up a little. You, on the other hand, state things as 100% black and white as if that somehow must be the "truth".

powerangle
04-16-2011, 09:56 AM
Don't you dare to write Roddick's and Murray's name in the same sentence ever again. Murray is legend.

Edit: I reread your post and found out you never did wrote them in the same sentence. :lol:

Reading can be a ***** can't it? :)

Murray is a legend....lol. At what? I even like Murray.

NadalAgassi
04-16-2011, 10:36 AM
I agree Federer's true prime was probably from 2003 Wimbledon-2007 Australian Open. Losing twice in a row to Canas in hard court Masters was essentialy the start of the end of his prime IMO. However that isnt exactly a ringing endorsement for him as a so called GOAT SHOULD have a longer period playing prime tennis than that. It is basically an admission outside of a 3.5 year period he played far below his career best level, even if he did win a number of slams (usually when he avoided his main threats through injury or some other way) after that period ended. Nadal and Djokovic have arguably already had as long or longer of primes than Federer, and are still young and probably going to have much longer ones. Having a short prime is not a positive.

powerangle
04-16-2011, 10:53 AM
I agree Federer's true prime was probably from 2003 Wimbledon-2007 Australian Open. Losing twice in a row to Canas in hard court Masters was essentialy the start of the end of his prime IMO. However that isnt exactly a ringing endorsement for him as a so called GOAT SHOULD have a longer period playing prime tennis than that. It is basically an admission outside of a 3.5 year period he played far below his career best level, even if he did win a number of slams (usually when he avoided his main threats through injury or some other way) after that period ended. Nadal and Djokovic have arguably already had as long or longer of primes than Federer, and are still young and probably going to have much longer ones. Having a short prime is not a positive.

True, but Nadal and Djokovic have yet to reach the heights of Federer's dominance as well (Nadal's 2010 was there, but that's only one year). There's: A) Being super dominant, but for fewer years, or B) Being less dominant overall, but had a longer prime period.

Both great in their own way. We will see how it all pans out. I like Nadal and Djokovic so I hope they can continue to put up impressive results.

NadalAgassi
04-16-2011, 10:55 AM
True, but Nadal and Djokovic have yet to reach the heights of Federer's dominance as well. There's: A) Being super dominant, but for fewer years, or B) Being less dominant overall, but had a longer prime period.

Both great in their own way.

I agree but Djokovic will never be the greatest ever (If he truly flourishes now he could become a second tier all time great with 6-8 majors maybe), and Nadal isnt even close to it at this point. The question is should the greatest player ever be someone with less than a 4 year prime?

Sartorius
04-16-2011, 11:37 AM
I agree Federer's true prime was probably from 2003 Wimbledon-2007 Australian Open. Losing twice in a row to Canas in hard court Masters was essentialy the start of the end of his prime IMO.

His 2007 season after those Canas defeats was pretty good..? Most of the time he actually played great, or in this case "prime" tennis.

However that isnt exactly a ringing endorsement for him as a so called GOAT SHOULD have a longer period playing prime tennis than that. It is basically an admission outside of a 3.5 year period he played far below his career best level, even if he did win a number of slams (usually when he avoided his main threats through injury or some other way) after that period ended. Nadal and Djokovic have arguably already had as long or longer of primes than Federer, and are still young and probably going to have much longer ones. Having a short prime is not a positive.

In which universe?

If the context is going to be "playing his career best", I would say this about Nadal: He played his best tennis last year between the clay season and USO, and in 2008 between clay season and AO. In 2008 Nadal's first title came in Monte Carlo, then he went on an absolute tear towards Olympics. After winning the Olympics, he didn't reach a final until the AO 09.

In 2010, Nadal's first title again came in Monte Carlo where he ended almost a year title drought. Swept all clay tournaments, won Wimbledon and USO (demanding redundant statement in parentheses since you came up with one: played weak draws besides the semi final and the final, respectively. Defending USO champ was absent). Besides these tournaments, Nadal only reached 2 finals. Won Bangkok, lost the YEC.

If the intention is comparing with Federer, I'm not even going to talk about Djokovic.

In the end Federer holds an unprecedented run as No.1 through 2003-2008 where he contested as finalist or winner in a vast number of tournaments. He also finished 2009 as No.1 reaching all slam finals once again, then posted below standard but still decent resulsts 2010 including a slam. In this day, I don't think you can compare Nadal's, and especially Djokovic's primes to Federer's.

powerangle
04-16-2011, 12:03 PM
I agree but Djokovic will never be the greatest ever (If he truly flourishes now he could become a second tier all time great with 6-8 majors maybe), and Nadal isnt even close to it at this point. The question is should the greatest player ever be someone with less than a 4 year prime?

Conversely, can a player be the greatest if he had a longer than 4 year prime but his prime overall was less spectacular and less accomplished?

What we do know is, at least in the Open Era, there has never been a spectacular a run as Fed had for a few years there. There have been some extremely great single seasons, but then that's about it (some great seasons otherwise but never consecutive and to the level of Fed's 2004-2007).

powerangle
04-16-2011, 12:09 PM
I agree Federer's true prime was probably from 2003 Wimbledon-2007 Australian Open. Losing twice in a row to Canas in hard court Masters was essentialy the start of the end of his prime IMO. However that isnt exactly a ringing endorsement for him as a so called GOAT SHOULD have a longer period playing prime tennis than that. It is basically an admission outside of a 3.5 year period he played far below his career best level, even if he did win a number of slams (usually when he avoided his main threats through injury or some other way) after that period ended. Nadal and Djokovic have arguably already had as long or longer of primes than Federer, and are still young and probably going to have much longer ones. Having a short prime is not a positive.

If Djokovic has had as long a prime as Federer, then Djokovic's prime results are pretty lacking. Winning a slam every other year/2 years as prime is not even close to Fed's results in his respective prime, so you can't really use Djokovic's "longer prime" against Fed.

Same with Nadal. Nadal had a lull after his AO in 2009, before coming back to his form in almost mid-2010. If you are going to count Nadal's less-than-par periods as part of his prime, of course his prime is going to look longer and more favorable against Fed's 4 year prime (in which Fed was extremely successful).

NadalAgassi
04-16-2011, 12:13 PM
In the end Federer holds an unprecedented run as No.1 through 2003-2008 where he contested as finalist or winner in a vast number of tournaments.

Federer was never once ranked #1 in 2003. Nor should he have been since he didnt even win a Masters title that year (though he did win the WTF) or reach a slam quarterfinal outside of his Wimbledon triumph. And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over, Nadal was a universe better than him this year and Djokovic was also a better player much of the year.

He also finished 2009 as No.1 reaching all slam finals once again

Lets face it, everyone knows his return to #1 in 2009 was only due to Nadal's injury. Even most reasonable minded Federer fans admit this. His best tennis was long in the past by 2009.

NadalAgassi
04-16-2011, 12:17 PM
If Djokovic has had as long a prime as Federer, then Djokovic's prime results are pretty lacking. Winning a slam every other year/2 years as prime is not even close to Fed's results in his respective prime, so you can't really use Djokovic's "longer prime" against Fed.

Of course but nobody is saying Djokovic is one of the greats in history by any stretch (well maybe Yodabest, LOL). My only point was even such a marginal great player has been able to mantain his own prime tennis as long or longer than Federer, or atleast that seems certain to end up being the case, which isnt a great reflection on Federer when comparing him to other true greats in history (aka not Djokovic). Of course Djokovic is so inferior as a player to Federer most of his prime tennis is still worse than Federer's post prime tennis, but that is aside the point.


Same with Nadal. Nadal had a lull after his AO in 2009, before coming back to his form in almost mid-2010. If you are going to count Nadal's less-than-par periods as part of his prime, of course his prime is going to look longer and more favorable against Fed's 4 year prime (in which Fed he was extremely successful).

Fair enough, but in this case Nadal lost some of his prime due to injury. Even with that period taken out though, most likely he will end up with a longer prime than Federer. Another way to look at it was Federer was considered the best player in the World from 2004 to 2007. Nadal was considered the best player in the World from 2008 to now, which is already almost as long.

powerangle
04-16-2011, 12:27 PM
Of course but nobody is saying Djokovic is one of the greats in history by any stretch (well maybe Yodabest, LOL). My only point was even such a marginal great player has been able to mantain his own prime tennis as long or longer than Federer, or atleast that seems certain to end up being the case, which isnt a great reflection on Federer when comparing him to other true greats in history (aka not Djokovic). Of course Djokovic is so inferior as a player to Federer most of his prime tennis is still worse than Federer's post prime tennis, but that is aside the point.




Fair enough, but in this case Nadal lost some of his prime due to injury. Even with that period taken out though, most likely he will end up with a longer prime than Federer. Another way to look at it was Federer was considered the best player in the World from 2004 to 2007. Nadal was considered the best player in the World from 2008 to now, which is already almost as long.

I know you didn't mean to say Djokovic is a great player or is comparable to Fed, I'm just saying that you were comparing their ability to maintain their own respective primes. What I'm saying is that you can't fault Federer for "not maintaining his prime that long" when Fed's prime is winning in such an extreme fashion, that anything less is considered less-than-stellar and non-prime....and so somehow that should be counted against him???

An example: Player A, for 7 consecutive years, wins 3 majors in 3 seasons, then 2 majors in each of the 4 remainding seasons, for a total of 17 majors in 7 seasons. Player A's prime is 3 years long.

Player B, in 7 consecutive years, wins 1 major in each of 7 seasons, for 7 majors total over 7 seasons. Player B's prime is 7 years long.

How can you fault player A for "only had a 3 year prime!" and say player B "had a 7 year prime!" when player A's less-than-prime is more successful than player B's prime?

This is an extreme example of course, but I am making the analogy to Fed and Djoko.

Sartorius
04-16-2011, 12:32 PM
Federer was never once ranked #1 in 2003. Nor should he have been since he didnt even win a Masters title that year (though he did win the WTF) or reach a slam quarterfinal outside of his Wimbledon triumph. And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over, Nadal was a universe better than him this year and Djokovic was also a better player much of the year.

Yes my mistake, scratch 2003 and make it 2004. Disagree about Nadal being a "universe better" than Federer in 2008. Pause for laughter about Djokovic being "better much of the year".

Lets face it, everyone knows his return to #1 in 2009 was only due to Nadal's injury. Even most reasonable minded Federer fans admit this. His best tennis was long in the past by 2009.

I disagree, I don't think it was "only" due to Nadal's injury. I guess I'm not reasonable. :(

He didn't play his very best tennis though, that's true, but he still played in all slam finals.

Nadal was considered the best player in the World from 2008 to now, which is already almost as long.

Well that's grand... I guess 2009 has an "IF" tag on it, yes?

powerangle
04-16-2011, 12:36 PM
Fed basically never had a let up (not like Djokovic's or Nadal's several months-long lull periods) from 2003 TMC to 2007 AO. He basically backed it up tournament after tournament. So conversely, per your previous argument, can we really say or call a player that great if they can't maintain dominant forms/results and they have to go into these long periods of stagnation? Why did Nadal and Djokovic have to dip so much, and for several months, in their primes...when Fed didn't have to?

My point is....either: A) Nadal and Djokovic's "primes" are pretty weak, if they have those long dips in form and results. And therefore, Fed's "just 4 years" prime looks very favorable compared to theirs.

or

B) Nadal and Djokovic's primes are much shorter, and you have to take out those long periods of dipping form and results. And therefore, Fed's "just 4 years" prime is actually longer their primes.

tennis_pro
04-16-2011, 01:58 PM
Federer was never once ranked #1 in 2003. Nor should he have been since he didnt even win a Masters title that year (though he did win the WTF) or reach a slam quarterfinal outside of his Wimbledon triumph. And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over, Nadal was a universe better than him this year and Djokovic was also a better player much of the year.

Federer indeed was not the no 1 player in any week of 2003 but he played like it. Just listen to some commentators after he won the Masters Cup. "Andy Roddick might be the official no 1 player in the world but we know who the real no 1 is".

Winning no Masters titles in a year is no shame when you can make up for it with a GS and the Tennis Masters Cup titles.

"And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over"

That's how it works. Nadal was the no 1 player in the world for the bigger part of 2009 even though his results after the Madrid Masters were average with Federer winning the FO, Wimbledon and reaching a couple more big finals.

Lets face it, everyone knows his return to #1 in 2009 was only due to Nadal's injury. Even most reasonable minded Federer fans admit this. His best tennis was long in the past by 2009.

How did Nadal reach the no 1 spot in 2008 in the first place? Thanks to a huge drop of level from Federer, his sickness and back issues. Double standards, mate, double standards. They always work both ways. The only real big difference in Nadal's results in 2008 compared to, say, 2007, was that Wimbledon victory which was a HUGE confidence boost for the Spaniard and a HUGE letdown for Federer. Come on, he was far from being the best hard courter in 2008. Don't fool yourself, Nadal wouldn't've reached the no 1 spot in 2008 if it wasn't for a lackluster year for Fed.

I agree that the last time Fed played his best tennis was in 2007, but I kinda feel he was unlucky in 2008, I mean come on from a season in which he won 3 Slams to the next season in which he lost to Roddick (with all respect but we know the story), Simon (twice), Stepanek, Fish, freaking Karlovic, almost lost to Ginepri?

luvly
04-16-2011, 04:16 PM
Federer was never once ranked #1 in 2003. Nor should he have been since he didnt even win a Masters title that year (though he did win the WTF) or reach a slam quarterfinal outside of his Wimbledon triumph. And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over, Nadal was a universe better than him this year and Djokovic was also a better player much of the year.

Lets face it, everyone knows his return to #1 in 2009 was only due to Nadal's injury. Even most reasonable minded Federer fans admit this. His best tennis was long in the past by 2009.



actually federer was pretty close. the difference between him and roddick for the year end was 160 points. In fact the canadian open semi final is often considered to be the match that decided the year end number 1 because had roger won that match and everything else stayed the same he would have been number 1....that is in fact a lot closer than djokovic has even been to number one and even closer than nadal was to number 1 for most of 2008 (he didnt get unitl after roger lost in like the second or third round of cincy, had roger won that match he still would have held number 1 another week or so)



http://************.com/rankings/2003/s2003.htm

CocaCola
04-16-2011, 04:27 PM
That era was weak and GOAT playing in it made it look even worse.

NadalAgassi
04-16-2011, 04:42 PM
Federer indeed was not the no 1 player in any week of 2003 but he played like it. Just listen to some commentators after he won the Masters Cup. "Andy Roddick might be the official no 1 player in the world but we know who the real no 1 is".

That is a case of last impressions count the most. People who said Federer was the real #1 of 2003 were unfairly looking at only his head to head matches with Roddick. Roddick had by far a better year with results with 1 slam title and 2 slam semis vs Federer 1 slam title and no other times past the round of 16, and that summer run where he won 2 Masters and the U.S Open in a row (and 2 Masters > 1 TMF too).


Winning no Masters titles in a year is no shame when you can make up for it with a GS and the Tennis Masters Cup titles.

His year was no shame but it definitely wasnt a #1 worthy year. He in fact didnt spend even one week at #1 in 2003, with Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Agassi trading the position on and off.


"And the only reason he spent anytime at #1 in 2008 was his 2007 points carried over"

That's how it works. Nadal was the no 1 player in the world for the bigger part of 2009 even though his results after the Madrid Masters were average with Federer winning the FO, Wimbledon and reaching a couple more big finals.

Of course. Fact is Nadal was by far the #1 player of 2008 with Federer not even close. And the best player of the first 3 months of 2008 was Djokovic.


How did Nadal reach the no 1 spot in 2008 in the first place? Thanks to a huge drop of level from Federer, his sickness and back issues. Double standards, mate, double standards.

He reached #1 by the natural progression of his own abilities and the natural regression of Federer's which seemed inevitable to take place soon after 2007. Nadal was so close to beating Federer in the 2007 Wimbledon final, and bulled him so badly from the baseline all match (which Federer admited, it took a career serving day to eke him through), it seemed probable he would take him at Wimbledon the next year which he did. Needless to say Federer was never going to stop Nadal at Roland Garros by that point. And with Federer already beginning to lose in Masters on hard courts to the likes of Canas and Nalbandian in 2007, his complete dominance of the major hard court events was looking like nearing its end too and indeed did in 2008. So how did Nadal reach #1 in 2008? By simply following the logical progression of things based on how 2007 looked.


They always work both ways. The only real big difference in Nadal's results in 2008 compared to, say, 2007, was that Wimbledon victory which was a HUGE confidence boost for the Spaniard and a HUGE letdown for Federer.

Indeed. And led to Nadal being the clear #1 of 2008 with results that clearly eclipsed Federer in all respects- slams, Masters, overall tournaments. Had Federer won the Wimbledon final......well what if Nadal had won the Wimbledon final in 2007, either way it doesnt matter now does it.

Come on, he was far from being the best hard courter in 2008.

The best overall hard court player of 2008 was clearly Novak Djokovic. It certainly wasnt Federer who won nothing outside the U.S Open. Djokovic won the Australian Open, WTF, and Indian Wells. Nadal was clearly best on clay and grass. Federer in 2008 was best on nothing.

Don't fool yourself, Nadal wouldn't've reached the no 1 spot in 2008 if it wasn't for a lackluster year for Fed.

Every year since 2007 has been a lackluster year for Federer relative to his 2004-2007 standards. He simply was never as good a player as he had been those years again, marking his relatively short peak (relative to many past all timers). That is my point anyway, his prime was already over in 2008, and his time as the best in the World was already up for good by 2008 as well.


I agree that the last time Fed played his best tennis was in 2007, but I kinda feel he was unlucky in 2008, I mean come on from a season in which he won 3 Slams to the next season in which he lost to Roddick (with all respect but we know the story), Simon (twice), Stepanek, Fish, freaking Karlovic, almost lost to Ginepri?

How is that unlucky!?!? Losing to a string of people like that only shows Federer was no longer the best and no longer worthy of being #1 like I said. Hence why an improving Nadal took over as the top dog starting in 2008.

tennis_pro
04-16-2011, 06:29 PM
His year was no shame but it definitely wasnt a #1 worthy year. He in fact didnt spend even one week at #1 in 2003, with Roddick, Ferrero, Hewitt, and Agassi trading the position on and off.

So you need some Masters titles to be a worthy no 1 player in the world? Look what Sampras did in both 1996 and 1998

Sampras in 1996 - won a Slam + Tennis Masters Cup and some other smaller titles - finished no 1

Sampras in 1998 - that is the biggest joke how he finished at #1 in the world, he won a Slam + 3 smaller titles, his results in Slams and outside of them are almost indentical of Juan Martin Del Potro's in 2009 and Juan finished 2009 ranked no 5 (!!!!!) whilst Sampras was the no 1 in the world, it's a huge arguement for Sampras competition being a complete joke cause all the titles were spread around tons of guys. Federer doesn't have this comfort. He knows that if he fails to win a big title, a top top player, most likely Nadal or Djokovic will take them hence making the point difference smaller. Sampras had no competition in 1996-1998 after Agassi fell into misery


He reached #1 by the natural progression of his own abilities and the natural regression of Federer's which seemed inevitable to take place soon after 2007. Nadal was so close to beating Federer in the 2007 Wimbledon final, and bulled him so badly from the baseline all match (which Federer admited, it took a career serving day to eke him through), it seemed probable he would take him at Wimbledon the next year which he did. Needless to say Federer was never going to stop Nadal at Roland Garros by that point. And with Federer already beginning to lose in Masters on hard courts to the likes of Canas and Nalbandian in 2007, his complete dominance of the major hard court events was looking like nearing its end too and indeed did in 2008. So how did Nadal reach #1 in 2008? By simply following the logical progression of things based on how 2007 looked.

Correct. Weird losses happened to Federer not only in 2007 but prior to that also.

2004 - lost to Hrbaty, heck even losing to a kid Nadal was a strange loss
2005 - Gasquet beating Federer?
2006 - 19-year old Murray beating Federer (ok Fed was a bit exhausted)
2007 - it's not like he started to lose to outsiders constantly, besides losing to Canas early in 2007 and then to Volandri all the rest were normal, 2 losses to Nadal on clay, 1 loss to Djokovic, 2 losses to Nalbandian + one more loss to Gonzalez which turned out to be meaningless as Fed went on to win the Masters Cup in 2007, more like a wake up call than anything

2008 - now we're talking, FISH, KARLOVIC, STEPANEK, SIMON (twice), Roddick (come on, only one loss to Roddick since 2003 and that was it), Blake (who got bageled by Federer in almost every match), dang he almost lost to Ginepri on his best surface

Going with the pattern it should go even worse in 2009-2011? No such thing. In 2009 till Wimbledon he lost only to Murray twice, Djokovic twice, Nadal once and once to Wawrinka (straight after Federer's wedding, I don't think Stan has taken more than a set since then from Federer).
Even now in 2011 he only lost to Djokovic, Nadal and Melzer

My conclusion: 2008 there was definately something wrong with Federer since even now at 30 he's only losing to top top players


How is that unlucky!?!? Losing to a string of people like that only shows Federer was no longer the best and no longer worthy of being #1 like I said. Hence why an improving Nadal took over as the top dog starting in 2008.

As I mentioned before, Federer was unlucky with all that sickness, slump and injuries. OBVIOUSLY he has been improving till 2006 and declining since. Instead of losing a bit more in 2008 compared to 2007 (like he did in 2007 compared to 2006) he suddenly started losing to tier 2 or even tier 3 players. My point is, he wouldn't've declined in 2008 so much if he wasn't UNLUCKY with the illness at the end of 2007.

Big_Dangerous
04-16-2011, 06:39 PM
that's not a prostitute. That's dijana, his mom.

That was the joke....

:roll:

Big_Dangerous
04-16-2011, 06:47 PM
Who says it will? :lol: The King brought tennis to a whole nother level, as a tennisfan you should be happy.

I ****ing hate you so much that you refer to Djoker as the King.

Has he won 16 Grand Slams? Nope

Was he #1 for 237 consecutive weeks? I don't Nole was ever ranked #1.

Has he won 18 masters series? Or made the finals of 29 of them?

Nope.


Clearly not the King, and you referring to him as that is laughable.

Please don't let the door hit you on the *** as you find your way out of this forum.

powerangle
04-16-2011, 10:29 PM
I ****ing hate you so much that you refer to Djoker as the King.

Has he won 16 Grand Slams? Nope

Was he #1 for 237 consecutive weeks? I don't Nole was ever ranked #1.

Has he won 18 masters series? Or made the finals of 29 of them?

Nope.


Clearly not the King, and you referring to him as that is laughable.

Please don't let the door hit you on the *** as you find your way out of this forum.

No need to get bent out of shape over YodaFlame :) Let him worship his "King" lol

powerangle
04-16-2011, 10:32 PM
Of course but nobody is saying Djokovic is one of the greats in history by any stretch (well maybe Yodabest, LOL). My only point was even such a marginal great player has been able to mantain his own prime tennis as long or longer than Federer, or atleast that seems certain to end up being the case, which isnt a great reflection on Federer when comparing him to other true greats in history (aka not Djokovic). Of course Djokovic is so inferior as a player to Federer most of his prime tennis is still worse than Federer's post prime tennis, but that is aside the point.




Fair enough, but in this case Nadal lost some of his prime due to injury. Even with that period taken out though, most likely he will end up with a longer prime than Federer. Another way to look at it was Federer was considered the best player in the World from 2004 to 2007. Nadal was considered the best player in the World from 2008 to now, which is already almost as long.

Eh, give credit where it's due. 2009 was Federer's. Yeah, yeah Nadal was injured but that is part of sports. Being healthy is part of the deal for an athlete. Otherwise the whole mono thing can be brought up in 2008 for Federer.

2008 and 2010 have been awesome years for Nadal though, and he looks primed for even more outstanding seasons, winning multiple majors en route.

NadalAgassi
04-17-2011, 12:35 PM
So you need some Masters titles to be a worthy no 1 player in the world? Look what Sampras did in both 1996 and 1998

Sampras in 1996 - won a Slam + Tennis Masters Cup and some other smaller titles - finished no 1

Sampras in 1998 - that is the biggest joke how he finished at #1 in the world, he won a Slam + 3 smaller titles, his results in Slams and outside of them are almost indentical of Juan Martin Del Potro's in 2009 and Juan finished 2009 ranked no 5 (!!!!!) whilst Sampras was the no 1 in the world, it's a huge arguement for Sampras competition being a complete joke cause all the titles were spread around tons of guys. Federer doesn't have this comfort. He knows that if he fails to win a big title, a top top player, most likely Nadal or Djokovic will take them hence making the point difference smaller. Sampras had no competition in 1996-1998 after Agassi fell into misery

Roddick in 2003 clearly outperformed Federer in BOTH Slams and Masters. Yes you need to win Masters to be #1 when you only make it past the round of 16 of 1 of the 4 slams. There is absolutely no basis on results for Federer deserving #1 in 2003, Roddick clearly had the better year. Really in many ways Agassi and Ferrero had more impressive years despite Federer collecting the needed points to be #2. You laugh at Sampras being #1 with his 1998 results but even being #2 making it past the round of 16 of only 1 slam and winning no Masters events until the TMC on top of that seems even worse if you want to go there.


Correct. Weird losses happened to Federer not only in 2007 but prior to that also.

2004 - lost to Hrbaty, heck even losing to a kid Nadal was a strange loss
2005 - Gasquet beating Federer?
2006 - 19-year old Murray beating Federer (ok Fed was a bit exhausted)
2007 - it's not like he started to lose to outsiders constantly, besides losing to Canas early in 2007 and then to Volandri all the rest were normal, 2 losses to Nadal on clay, 1 loss to Djokovic, 2 losses to Nalbandian + one more loss to Gonzalez which turned out to be meaningless as Fed went on to win the Masters Cup in 2007, more like a wake up call than anything

2008 - now we're talking, FISH, KARLOVIC, STEPANEK, SIMON (twice), Roddick (come on, only one loss to Roddick since 2003 and that was it), Blake (who got bageled by Federer in almost every match), dang he almost lost to Ginepri on his best surface

So his level of play regressed, thus he had more bad losses, and thus he was no longer the best player in the World. Exactly as I said.

Going with the pattern it should go even worse in 2009-2011? No such thing. In 2009 till Wimbledon he lost only to Murray twice, Djokovic twice, Nadal once and once to Wawrinka (straight after Federer's wedding, I don't think Stan has taken more than a set since then from Federer).
Even now in 2011 he only lost to Djokovic, Nadal and Melzer

Federer began 2009 in no better fashion. Got killed by Wawrinka on clay, was down 2 sets to 0 to Berdych in Australia before Berdych choked, and went 0-5 vs the Djokovic/Murray/Nadal trio. He got a temporary confidence boost by Nadals injury stretch which opened the door for him to win the French-Wimbledon double he would have never managed at that phase of his career otherwise, and the regained confidence/momentum explains the temporary reduction of bad losses. In slams in some ways he was worse, the only thing that was better for him was no healthy Nadal to take slams away from him like 2008, he was now losing a slam final to someone like Del Potro, nearly losing one to someone like Roddick, and being points from losing at the French Open to a 31 year old Tommy Haas, LOL! What is clear is not that Nadal got to #1 in 2008 because of Federers problems (or expected decline really) but the only reason Federers slam results improved in 2009 was Nadal going down hard mid year with injuries, since if you read between the lines of his performances apart from Nadal as an opponent he was continuing to get worse, not better. Last year in 2010 he was back to the frequent bad losses, losing to Berdych twice including at Wimbledon, and losing to the likes of Baghdatis, Gulbis, Montanes, and Monfils throughout the year, no better than 2008, and worse overall slam results. 2011 has barely started but you can bet there will be many more of those type of losses again for him.

My conclusion: 2008 there was definately something wrong with Federer since even now at 30 he's only losing to top top players


Melzer, Baghdatis, Gulbis, Montanes, and Monfils are all top players, ROTFL!


As I mentioned before, Federer was unlucky with all that sickness, slump and injuries. OBVIOUSLY he has been improving till 2006 and declining since. Instead of losing a bit more in 2008 compared to 2007 (like he did in 2007 compared to 2006) he suddenly started losing to tier 2 or even tier 3 players. My point is, he wouldn't've declined in 2008 so much if he wasn't UNLUCKY with the illness at the end of 2007.

According to you he is better now than 2008 (which he isnt but anyway) yet he is still ranked below Nadal. So your point regarding 2008 is what exactly.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 12:39 PM
I ****ing hate you so much that you refer to Djoker as the King.

Has he won 16 Grand Slams? Nope

Was he #1 for 237 consecutive weeks? I don't Nole was ever ranked #1.

Has he won 18 masters series? Or made the finals of 29 of them?

Nope.


Clearly not the King, and you referring to him as that is laughable.

Please don't let the door hit you on the *** as you find your way out of this forum.

Did Federer clean the whole hardcourt season like the King did? No! There, you have your answer now.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:09 PM
Roddick in 2003 clearly outperformed Federer in BOTH Slams and Masters. Yes you need to win Masters to be #1 when you only make it past the round of 16 of 1 of the 4 slams. There is absolutely no basis on results for Federer deserving #1 in 2003, Roddick clearly had the better year. Really in many ways Agassi and Ferrero had more impressive years despite Federer collecting the needed points to be #2. You laugh at Sampras being #1 with his 1998 results but even being #2 making it past the round of 16 of only 1 slam and winning no Masters events until the TMC on top of that seems even worse if you want to go there.

1)Dude this is laughable. So based on your logic a guy who reached all 4 Slam semis in a year deserves to end the year at no 1 more than a guy who won 1 Slam and reached no other quarters? Luckily, you're not making the ranking system. It's not always about Slams + Masters, you know? Federer won 8 titles that year, including 2 HUGE one's, Wimbledon and the Tennis Masters Cup which awards almost as many point as a Slam.

2)Why do you suddenly compare Federer's 2003 year to Sampras' 1998? Federer had a better 2008 than Sampras did in 1998 and yet he finished second (BARELY, Djokovic right behind his back) with Nadal being 3.000 points ahead at the time.

As I said, Sampras knew that the competition is so spread, if he failed to win 3 random big titles, there would be 3 different winners. Federer on the other hand knows that if he fails to win them, their Nadal's to take.

Another point is that Del Potro had good enough results in 2009 to finish 1998 at no 1 even though in 2009 he finished at no 5, LOL. Sampras and his competition...gimme a break...




So his level of play regressed, thus he had more bad losses, and thus he was no longer the best player in the World. Exactly as I said.

You still don't get it, do you?

It's not like he went steadily downhill, it was slight decline, slight decline and then BANG, in 2008 he started to lose to just about everybody who gave a fight. YET, in 2009 he progressed a bit, 2010 progressed a bit, then declined a bit, then progressed a bit again? LOL, it's not how it works.

Answer 1 question - if Federer has been declining since 2007 and already in 2008 lost to guys like Simon, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish etc. why is he beating them now in 2011?

The answer is: 2008 wasn't a typical level decline from Federer, it was aided by a sickness and a back injury


Federer began 2009 in no better fashion. Got killed by Wawrinka on clay, was down 2 sets to 0 to Berdych in Australia before Berdych choked, and went 0-5 vs the Djokovic/Murray/Nadal trio. He got a temporary confidence boost by Nadals injury stretch which opened the door for him to win the French-Wimbledon double he would have never managed at that phase of his career otherwise, and the regained confidence/momentum explains the temporary reduction of bad losses. In slams in some ways he was worse, the only thing that was better for him was no healthy Nadal to take slams away from him like 2008, he was now losing a slam final to someone like Del Potro, nearly losing one to someone like Roddick, and being points from losing at the French Open to a 31 year old Tommy Haas, LOL! What is clear is not that Nadal got to #1 in 2008 because of Federers problems (or expected decline really) but the only reason Federers slam results improved in 2009 was Nadal going down hard mid year with injuries, since if you read between the lines of his performances apart from Nadal as an opponent he was continuing to get worse, not better. Last year in 2010 he was back to the frequent bad losses, losing to Berdych twice including at Wimbledon, and losing to the likes of Baghdatis, Gulbis, Montanes, and Monfils throughout the year, no better than 2008, and worse overall slam results. 2011 has barely started but you can bet there will be many more of those type of losses again for him.

Federer in 2009 was in a Slump after the 2009 AO loss, each time he played a top 5 player he lost TILL Madrid 2009. That was the best chance for him to get going, beating Nadal on clay and regaining some confidence.

"What is clear is not that Nadal got to #1 in 2008 because of Federers problems (or expected decline really) but the only reason Federers slam results improved in 2009 was Nadal going down hard mid year with injuries"


Dude, you're wrong. Nadal improved steadily, he was a bit better in 2006 compared to 2005, a bit better in 2007 compared to 2006 and a bit better in 2008 compared to 2007. Federer had a huge advantage in ranking points in very season mentioned. It's still double standards. Nadal was lucky to be facing a mediocre Federer in 2008 AS was Federer in mid 2009 not facing Nadal. It's not always about Nadal and what he does, ok cause till the end of 2007 he was totally dependant on what Federer did.

Melzer, Baghdatis, Gulbis, Montanes, and Monfils are all top players, ROTFL!

Federer was in a Slump after 2010 AO, if it wasn't visible enough for you. The only non-top-5 losses since 2010 Canada Masters have been to Monfils in Paris (even though he had match poins) and to Melzer a couple days ago in Monte Carlo. 2 LOSSES IN 8 MONTHS for an almost 30-year old player, that's great results. Btw both Melzer and Monfils are top 10 right now so it's not like they're nobodies.


According to you he is better now than 2008 (which he isnt but anyway) yet he is still ranked below Nadal. So your point regarding 2008 is what exactly.

Federer from late 2010 is better than Federer on average from 2008 and that is 100 % true. In 2008 he still had flashes of brilliance but there are NO excuses to losing to, say, Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2, getting beaten by Stepanek in straights, getting beaten by Karlovic or losing to Simon twice in a row after a year in which he won 3 Slams (talking about 2007 here).

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:22 PM
Did Federer clean the whole hardcourt season like the King did? No! There, you have your answer now.

Federer on hard courts in 2006:

WON:

Doha
Australian Open
Indian Wells
Miami
Canada
US Open
Tokio
Madrid
Basel
Masters Cup

there's your King, cowboy

powerangle
04-17-2011, 01:29 PM
1)Dude this is laughable. So based on your logic a guy who reached all 4 Slam semis in a year deserves to end the year at no 1 more than a guy who won 1 Slam and reached no other quarters? Luckily, you're not making the ranking system. It's not always about Slams + Masters, you know? Federer won 8 titles that year, including 2 HUGE one's, Wimbledon and the Tennis Masters Cup which awards almost as many point as a Slam.

2)Why do you suddenly compare Federer's 2003 year to Sampras' 1998? Federer had a better 2008 than Sampras did in 1998 and yet he finished second (BARELY, Djokovic right behind his back) with Nadal being 3.000 points ahead at the time.

As I said, Sampras knew that the competition is so spread, if he failed to win 3 random big titles, there would be 3 different winners. Federer on the other hand knows that if he fails to win them, their Nadal's to take.

Another point is that Del Potro had good enough results in 2009 to finish 1998 at no 1 even though in 2009 he finished at no 5, LOL. Sampras and his competition...gimme a break...






You still don't get it, do you?

It's not like he went steadily downhill, it was slight decline, slight decline and then BANG, in 2008 he started to lose to just about everybody who gave a fight. YET, in 2009 he progressed a bit, 2010 progressed a bit, then declined a bit, then progressed a bit again? LOL, it's not how it works.

Answer 1 question - if Federer has been declining since 2007 and already in 2008 lost to guys like Simon, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish etc. why is he beating them now in 2011?

The answer is: 2008 wasn't a typical level decline from Federer, it was aided by a sickness and a back injury




Federer in 2009 was in a Slump after the 2009 AO loss, each time he played a top 5 player he lost TILL Madrid 2009. That was the best chance for him to get going, beating Nadal on clay and regaining some confidence.

"What is clear is not that Nadal got to #1 in 2008 because of Federers problems (or expected decline really) but the only reason Federers slam results improved in 2009 was Nadal going down hard mid year with injuries"


Dude, you're wrong. Nadal improved steadily, he was a bit better in 2006 compared to 2005, a bit better in 2007 compared to 2006 and a bit better in 2008 compared to 2007. Federer had a huge advantage in ranking points in very season mentioned. It's still double standards. Nadal was lucky to be facing a mediocre Federer in 2008 AS was Federer in mid 2009 not facing Nadal. It's not always about Nadal and what he does, ok cause till the end of 2007 he was totally dependant on what Federer did.



Federer was in a Slump after 2010 AO, if it wasn't visible enough for you. The only non-top-5 losses since 2010 Canada Masters have been to Monfils in Paris (even though he had match poins) and to Melzer a couple days ago in Monte Carlo. 2 LOSSES IN 8 MONTHS for an almost 30-year old player, that's great results. Btw both Melzer and Monfils are top 10 right now so it's not like they're nobodies.




Federer from late 2010 is better than Federer on average from 2008 and that is 100 % true. In 2008 he still had flashes of brilliance but there are NO excuses to losing to, say, Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2, getting beaten by Stepanek in straights, getting beaten by Karlovic or losing to Simon twice in a row after a year in which he won 3 Slams (talking about 2007 here).

Not really arguing anything here, just pointing out that Fed won 7 titles in 2003, not 8.:)

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 01:35 PM
Not really arguing anything here, just pointing out that Fed won 7 titles in 2003, not 8.:)

Yea, my bad, thx for the correction.

Point is, still more than Roddick, unless 6 means more than 7...

powerangle
04-17-2011, 01:51 PM
Yea, my bad, thx for the correction.

Point is, still more than Roddick, unless 6 means more than 7...

Well, I'll say a few things here, even though I don't want to get in depth about this.

We all know that total number of titles isn't the barometer for rankings (otherwise 5 ATP 250 tournies would be worth more than 3 slams, etc etc). It's a whole slew of factors.

I agree that Federer was the better player in 2003, after coming into his own at Wimbledon that year. He showed at TMC that he could reach a level of play that no other player could reach. In that light, he would be a very deserving #1, if the points came out that way.

However, it's not like Roddick is some hack that didn't deserve #1 that year either. Roddick won his first non-U.S. clay court title, made semis at Australian Open and Wimbledon (not having gone past 3rd round ever before), and went on his well-known summer tear, winning back-to-back Masters, beating Federer en-route, then also winning another title, and then culminating in his US Open triumph. Roddick accumulated the most points based on the ranking system. Not his fault that the ranking system works that way.

Fed also had his chance to be #1 when he played Roddick at Montreal that summer, and it's Fed's own fault that he would lose to Roddick for the first time in that all-important match. The #1 ranking was on the line for that match. Had he beaten Roddick, just like he would eventually beat Roddick a gazillion more times, he would have gotten the year-end #1.

I feel both are/would be very deserving of #1, but Roddick ending #1 and Federer #2 is no heinous crime. Federer was #2 mostly because he sucked in the first half of that year.

jackson vile
04-17-2011, 02:09 PM
Well, I'll say a few things here, even though I don't want to get in depth about this.

We all know that total number of titles isn't the barometer for rankings (otherwise 5 ATP 250 tournies would be worth more than 3 slams, etc etc). It's a whole slew of factors.

I agree that Federer was the better player in 2003, after coming into his own at Wimbledon that year. He showed at TMC that he could reach a level of play that no other player could reach. In that light, he would be a very deserving #1, if the points came out that way.

However, it's not like Roddick is some hack that didn't deserve #1 that year either. Roddick won his first non-U.S. clay court title, made semis at Australian Open and Wimbledon (not having gone past 3rd round ever before), and went on his well-known summer tear, winning back-to-back Masters, beating Federer en-route, then also winning another title, and then culminating in his US Open triumph. Roddick accumulated the most points based on the ranking system. Not his fault that the ranking system works that way.

Fed also had his chance to be #1 when he played Roddick at Montreal that summer, and it's Fed's own fault that he would lose to Roddick for the first time in that all-important match. The #1 ranking was on the line for that match. Had he beaten Roddick, just like he would eventually beat Roddick a gazillion more times, he would have gotten the year-end #1.

I feel both are/would be very deserving of #1, but Roddick ending #1 and Federer #2 is no heinous crime. Federer was #2 mostly because he sucked in the first half of that year.


Has anyone added up total points over players careers? Where could that be found?

powerangle
04-17-2011, 02:16 PM
Has anyone added up total points over players careers? Where could that be found?

Don't think that has been done. You'd probably need to add the points year by year yourself.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 02:18 PM
Has anyone added up total points over players careers? Where could that be found?

what do you need that for?

NadalAgassi
04-17-2011, 02:28 PM
1)Dude this is laughable. So based on your logic a guy who reached all 4 Slam semis in a year deserves to end the year at no 1 more than a guy who won 1 Slam and reached no other quarters?

If both guys won 1 slam as was the case with Federer and Roddick then hell yeah, especialy when the former also had better Masters results. If the former didn win a slam it makes your example null and pointless to Roddick and Federer in 2003 anyway.

Luckily, you're not making the ranking system.

Yeah the ATP made the ranking system and Roddick ended the year #1, not Federer, and Federer did not spend even a single week at #1 in 2003 so there you have it. This trying to argue Federer up as a true #1 in 2003 after the mistake of his supposed #1 ranking in 2003 which never existed was pointed out, is purely desperate and ridiculous and further proof of the insanely twisted arguments some of you *******s manage to invent out of the blue sometimes.


It's not always about Slams + Masters, you know?

Yeah you are right the most important events and the next most important events are not what it is all about. A #1 should be who performs best in 500 and 250 tournaments. :lol:


Federer won 8 titles that year, including 2 HUGE one's, Wimbledon and the Tennis Masters Cup which awards almost as many point as a Slam.

Federer did not collect enough points in 2003 to be #1. Which makes perfect sense since 1 slam + 2 slam semis + 2 Masters titles >>> 1 slam + 0 other slam semis or quarters + 0 Masters titles + TMC + 1 more small tournament win. Get over it and stop embarassing yourself further by making out Federer to be some uncrowned #1 in 2003 with his round of 16 slam average and failure to win a Masters title.


2)Why do you suddenly compare Federer's 2003 year to Sampras' 1998? Federer had a better 2008 than Sampras did in 1998 and yet he finished second (BARELY, Djokovic right behind his back) with Nadal being 3.000 points ahead at the time.

Read your own posts genius, YOU are the one who brought up Sampras 1998, not me. I agree it was ridiculous on YOUR behalf to bring Sampras 1998 into the argument at all, so perhaps you would like to explain why you brought up such a pointless topic.


As I said, Sampras knew that the competition is so spread, if he failed to win 3 random big titles, there would be 3 different winners. Federer on the other hand knows that if he fails to win them, their Nadal's to take.

LOL Nadal didnt even reach his first hard court slam semi until 2008. This line of logic is completely not true. While Federer was dominant all he knew was that Nadal would be there to take all the big clay court titles, which he could do nothing about. And of course once Nadal became a real threat to win on all surfaces, Federer was never again dominant. The hard court titles (and even probably grass) would have been divided up like a giant pie from 2004-2007 without him just as they would have been in the Sampras era. No difference.


Another point is that Del Potro had good enough results in 2009 to finish 1998 at no 1 even though in 2009 he finished at no 5, LOL. Sampras and his competition...gimme a break...

You are the one who pointlessly brought up Sampras 1998 year to the discussion, and keeps milking it in an attempt to divert from the discussion. Obviously staying on topic is a challenge for you.


You still don't get it, do you?

It's not like he went steadily downhill, it was slight decline, slight decline and then BANG, in 2008 he started to lose to just about everybody who gave a fight. YET, in 2009 he progressed a bit, 2010 progressed a bit, then declined a bit, then progressed a bit again? LOL, it's not how it works.

No it is you who does not get it. He began regressing in Spring of 2007 and it finally reached the point in 2008 he was no longer the dominant player on tour (which he has never been again since). 2009 he progressed for a bit yes but only after Nadals injury, and has since gone back into regression mode. He hasnt even made a slam final in over a year and you are talking about his progression from where he was in 2008, ROTFL! Get a clue.


Answer 1 question - if Federer has been declining since 2007 and already in 2008 lost to guys like Simon, Karlovic, Stepanek, Fish etc. why is he beating them now in 2011?

In the last year he has lost to Montanes, Gulbis, Monfils, Melzer, what is the difference. Gulbis and Montanes are not even as good as the players you mentioned. In 2008 he wasnt losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon, which for Federer is alot worse than losing to Fish or Stepanek in a minor tournament. Anyway as for those players you mention:

Simon- nowhere near the player he was in 2008 when he had his career year and made the top 10 (and had wins over Nadal and Djokovic too), and still nearly beat Federer in Australia.

Karlovic- he is a crapshoot, with his serve anything can happen on a given day. He plays Federer 11 times or whatever it is, he is bound to get a win due to his serve somewhere.

Stepanek- washed up now, no longer the top 15 player who was an outside threat to the top players he was then.

Fish- Federer nearly lost to him in Cincinnati last year, hardly would be shocking if he loses to him again.


The answer is: 2008 wasn't a typical level decline from Federer, it was aided by a sickness and a back injury

Federer in 2009 was in a Slump after the 2009 AO loss, each time he played a top 5 player he lost TILL Madrid 2009.

Federer was in a Slump after 2010 AO, if it wasn't visible enough for you.

So 2008 wasnt part of his natural progression, just a random slump due to physical issues according to you, yet here you are saying he had other slumps since then. So his continued decline and regression of results (other than when bolstered briefly by an obvious factor such as Nadals mid 2009 injury) is not a a natural course of drop off, but he simply is always in a slump that keeps him from being where he still should be, LOL! OK you keep thinking that.


It's not always about Nadal and what he does, ok cause till the end of 2007 he was totally dependant on what Federer did.

Yeah Nadal was totally dependent on Federer which is why even in his developmental stages he kept depriving Federer of all those Roland Garros titles and potential Calendar Slams. Which is why in 2006 Federer was denied a nearly perfect year by 4 losses to Nadal, including their first meeting of the year on hard courts. Federer during even his peak years was far more dependent on what #2 Nadal was doing, then #1 Nadal has ever been on Federer who has inflicted literally no damage on #1 Nadal, since you chose to go there.


Btw both Melzer and Monfils are top 10 right now so it's not like they're nobodies.

Yes those are steady top 10 caliber players right, LOL! Stepanek, Simon, and probably soon Fish have had cups of coffee in the top 10 too so what is your point.


Federer from late 2010 is better than Federer on average from 2008 and that is 100 % true. In 2008 he still had flashes of brilliance but there are NO excuses to losing to, say, Mardy Fish 6-3 6-2, getting beaten by Stepanek in straights, getting beaten by Karlovic or losing to Simon twice in a row after a year in which he won 3 Slams (talking about 2007 here).

If according to you Federer is so much better now, well fact is he is still ranked way below Nadal in points, and even below Djokovic, so all you do is continue to prove your point on 2008 and Nadal reaching #1 is no point anyway.

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 03:12 PM
Yeah the ATP made the ranking system and Roddick ended the year #1, not Federer, and Federer did not spend even a single week at #1 in 2003 so there you have it. This trying to argue Federer up as a true #1 in 2003 after the mistake of his supposed #1 ranking in 2003 which never existed was pointed out, is purely desperate and ridiculous and further proof of the insanely twisted arguments some of you *******s manage to invent out of the blue sometimes.

The rankings were correct and Roddick finished at no 1 ahead of Federer, there have been weird years, like 1982 -Connors won Wimbledon + the US Open and finished 3rd I think while McEnroe won nothing big and finished at no 1, 1989 - Becker wins Wimbledon + the US Open, finishes second behind Lendl who won the Australian Open.

I'm not using any twisted arguements here, you might not agree with the ranking system but that's how it works.

Yeah you are right the most important events and the next most important events are not what it is all about. A #1 should be who performs best in 500 and 250 tournaments. :lol:

Can't you read? I said it's not only Slams and Masters that matter. You're talking as if winning a Slam and 2 Masters shields gurantees you finish at no 1. I didn't make the ranking system but the maths is simple. A guy who wins a masters title and 3 ATP 500 tournaments gains more point than a player who wins a Slam, like it or not. Federer was 160 points from finishing 2003 at no 1, so give him a small ATP250 title in 2003 and your arguement becomes pointless. It went to the brink in the end.


Federer did not collect enough points in 2003 to be #1. Which makes perfect sense since 1 slam + 2 slam semis + 2 Masters titles >>> 1 slam + 0 other slam semis or quarters + 0 Masters titles + TMC + 1 more small tournament win. Get over it and stop embarassing yourself further by making out Federer to be some uncrowned #1 in 2003 with his round of 16 slam average and failure to win a Masters title.

BRO again you're wrong. Right about the ranking system, that's how it works but WRONG about Slams being the only factor of one's ranking. You're talking as if Roddick's W + SF + SF in Slams should automatically give him the edge over Federer who won Wimbledon and lost early in other Slams.

And a "failure to win a Masters title" wth you *********s have with these Masters titles for chh sake. AGAIN I bring Sampras to the discussion who won no Masters titles in either 1996 or 1998 and still finished 1st. MAGIC, ISN'T IT?


You are the one who pointlessly brought up Sampras 1998 year to the discussion, and keeps milking it in an attempt to divert from the discussion. Obviously staying on topic is a challenge for you.
Read your own posts genius, YOU are the one who brought up Sampras 1998, not me. I agree it was ridiculous on YOUR behalf to bring Sampras 1998 into the argument at all, so perhaps you would like to explain why you brought up such a pointless topic.

It wouldn't sound riddiculous if your brain had the ability to link simple information into unison. Bringing Sampras here makes sense if you think about the ranking system itself. Again, he won no Masters titles in 1996, in 1998 he even failed to win the Masters Cup and won only 1 Slam yet finished no 1 cause he could back it up with smaller wins and other deep runs. You're talking as if Masters titles are the biggest titles out there.


LOL Nadal didnt even reach his first hard court slam semi until 2008. This line of logic is completely not true. While Federer was dominant all he knew was that Nadal would be there to take all the big clay court titles, which he could do nothing about. And of course once Nadal became a real threat to win on all surfaces, Federer was never again dominant. The hard court titles (and even probably grass) would have been divided up like a giant pie from 2004-2007 without him just as they would have been in the Sampras era. No difference.

I was talking about post 2008 stuff. Nadal could do nothing to Federer on hard courts earlier (before you bring that HUGE won for Nadal in Dubai lol) OBVIOUSLY since he even couldn't beat him at Wimbledon which is a far better surface for Nadal and a slower one for Federer.

"once Nadal became a real threat to win on all surfaces Federer was never dominant again"

how funny so you expected Federer to dominate forever? somebody had to wake you up bigtime then, Nadal has been a threat on every surface since 2008 and look Federer lost to Djokovic in Australia 2008, then to Fish, then to Roddick, then to Murray, I mean he must've been so scared of Nadal at the time he decided to lose to guys he pwned earlier!


No it is you who does not get it. He began regressing in Spring of 2007 and it finally reached the point in 2008 he was no longer the dominant player on tour (which he has never been again since). 2009 he progressed for a bit yes but only after Nadals injury, and has since gone back into regression mode. He hasnt even made a slam final in over a year and you are talking about his progression from where he was in 2008, ROTFL! Get a clue.

show me one player who used to dominate, then fall into a slump and then dominate again.

once you start losing the aura dissapears, it's going to happen on clay to Nadal one day and he'll start losing to guys he used to pwn before, mark my words

I was talking about 2008 ON GENERAL (seriously, can't you read?), besides Basel, Halle and the US Open he was crap throughout 2008, in 2010 he won Australia, THEN had a slump but going further finished having a 35-4 record or something at the end of the year


In the last year he has lost to Montanes, Gulbis, Monfils, Melzer, what is the difference. Gulbis and Montanes are not even as good as the players you mentioned. In 2008 he wasnt losing to Tomas Berdych at Wimbledon, which for Federer is alot worse than losing to Fish or Stepanek in a minor tournament. Anyway as for those players you mention:

Simon- nowhere near the player he was in 2008 when he had his career year and made the top 10 (and had wins over Nadal and Djokovic too), and still nearly beat Federer in Australia.

Karlovic- he is a crapshoot, with his serve anything can happen on a given day. He plays Federer 11 times or whatever it is, he is bound to get a win due to his serve somewhere.

Stepanek- washed up now, no longer the top 15 player who was an outside threat to the top players he was then.

Fish- Federer nearly lost to him in Cincinnati last year, hardly would be shocking if he loses to him again.

Excuses.. losing to Karlovic, Stepanek, Simon ANY time for Federer is a crap performance. He went losing to them in CONSECUTIVE tournaments, now he's only beaten by top players even though age is getting to him.

So 2008 wasnt part of his natural progression, just a random slump due to physical issues according to you, yet here you are saying he had other slumps since then. So his continued decline and regression of results (other than when bolstered briefly by an obvious factor such as Nadals mid 2009 injury) is not a a natural course of drop off, but he simply is always in a slump that keeps him from being where he still should be, LOL! OK you keep thinking that.

It doesn't take a criminal mastermind to see when he's playing well and when he turns into ********. The only slumps he had were 2008-early 2009 and early to mid 2010. Tennis is not black and white if you cared to notice.

2008 WAS a part of his natural progression but it was aided by sickness and injury later in the year. In 2008 at one point you were uncertain he's gonna beat a random guy in the draw, now since August 2010 you know he won't lose to anyone outside of the top 10 on a regular basis (barely at all). If you don't get simple facts there's no use in continuing this discussion.


Nadal was totally dependent on Federer which is why even in his developmental stages he kept depriving Federer of all those Roland Garros titles and potential Calendar Slams. Which is why in 2006 Federer was denied a nearly perfect year by 4 losses to Nadal, including their first meeting of the year on hard courts. Federer during even his peak years was far more dependent on what #2 Nadal was doing, then #1 Nadal has ever been on Federer who has inflicted literally no damage on #1 Nadal, since you chose to go there.

Oh yea? How many times Nadal beat Fed outside of clay in 2004-2007? Twice. Once even when Federer had issues with his ankle in early 2006. How many times has Nadal beat Federer in Slams outside of clay in 2004-2007? He wasn't good enough to even reach the finals, damn semi-finals. Even if you look at 2008, he lost in the semis in both hard court slams. 2009 is the first and only time Nadal faced Federer and Fed's dominance was far over by then.


If according to you Fed is so much better now, well fact is he is still ranked way below Nadal in points, and even below Djokovic, so all you do is continue to prove your point on 2008 and Nadal reaching #1 is no point anyway.

2011 has been only solid from Federer, if we're talking about August 2010-end of 2010 then yea Fed was better then than he was throughout 2008 on average. On don't you dare bring the 2010 US Open semi-final cause that's a different case. Federer tanked sets 2 and 4 to save energy for Nadal and it haunted him in the 5th. Djokovic didn't care if he lost to Nadal in the final as long as he could beat his nemesis, Federer, at the US Open losing in the 3 previous editions.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 03:36 PM
Federer on hard courts in 2006:

WON:

Doha
Australian Open
Indian Wells
Miami
Canada
US Open
Tokio
Madrid
Basel
Masters Cup

there's your King, cowboy

Sorry to dissapoint you again, my dear troll, but Federer was not unbeaten neither of the 2 hardcourt seasons. The King has yet to lose a match and that's why he's the King and Federer is just Federer...

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 03:40 PM
Sorry to dissapoint you again, my dear troll, but Federer was not unbeaten neither of the 2 hardcourt seasons. The King has yet to lose a match and that's why he's the King and Federer is just Federer...

You wanna bet Djokovic loses more than twice this year on hard courts (given he doesn't skip the whole season like he's already attempting on clay this year LOL)? If I win, you leave TW, if you win, I'm out. Deal?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 03:41 PM
You wanna bet Djokovic loses more than twice this year on hard courts (given he doesn't skip the whole season like he's already attempting on clay this year LOL)? If I win, you leave TW, if you win, I'm out. Deal?

What's the point in this when we all know you have multiple accounts?

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 03:53 PM
What's the point in this when we all know you have multiple accounts?

LOL, SCARED CHICKEN, NO?

I dare you check my IP and name me 1 account I use under a different name.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:16 PM
LOL, SCARED CHICKEN, NO?

I dare you check my IP and name me 1 account I use under a different name.

How about we make some other deal? I want you gone as soon as possible so read carefully... I say Djokovic will win against Nadal on the first meeting on clay. You dare to challange me?

MagneticCurls
04-17-2011, 04:33 PM
Question is will Nadal take a set off Djokovic when they finally meet on clay?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:34 PM
Question is will Nadal take a set off Djokovic when they finally meet on clay?

Now you scared tennis_pro away and will never accept the challange. :(

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 04:41 PM
How about we make some other deal? I want you gone as soon as possible so read carefully... I say Djokovic will win against Nadal on the first meeting on clay. You dare to challange me?

Why change the challenge? You're not so sure about the first one, LOL?

I say Djokovic will win against Nadal on the first meeting on clay. You dare to challange me?

You can pack your bags now.

2006 French Open, Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-4 RET

LOL

Or either learn proper English.

Mustard
04-17-2011, 04:42 PM
Delete post.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:45 PM
Why change the challenge? You're not so sure about the first one, LOL?

Because I want you gone as soon as possible. You're not doubting Nadal, are you? :lol: You know, he's 10-0 on clay vs Djokovic so what are the odds he will lose? :)

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 04:47 PM
Because I want you gone as soon as possible. You're not doubting Nadal, are you? :lol: You know, he's 10-0 on clay vs Djokovic so what are the odds he will lose? :)

And why should I accept the challenge on your terms since it was my idea? If you're so sure Djokovic will lose no more than 2 matches on hard courts this season, what's the problem, cowboy? Why change the challenge if we're talking about the unbeaten "king" here?

Mustard
04-17-2011, 04:51 PM
Because I want you gone as soon as possible. You're not doubting Nadal, are you? :lol: You know, he's 10-0 on clay vs Djokovic so what are the odds he will lose? :)

Nadal is 9-0 against Djokovic on clay, not 10-0.

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:51 PM
Why change the challenge? You're not so sure about the first one, LOL?



You can pack your bags now.

2006 French Open, Rafael Nadal def. Novak Djokovic 6-4 6-4 RET

LOL

Or either learn proper English.

How lame... you know I meant this year. My English will probably never be as good as yours, because I have 2 other languages wich I'm dealing with. I can also understand German. :lol:

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 04:56 PM
How lame... you know I meant this year. My English will probably never be as good as yours, because I have 2 other languages that I'm dealing with. I can also understand German. :lol:

Don't care. I speak English, German and French very well and neither of them is my native. That's your problem how you deal with it

As for the challenge, up for it or not? Or you want something that's on your terms even more, say, Djokovic wins at least 10 more matches on hard courts this year?

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 04:58 PM
And why should I accept the challenge on your terms since it was my idea? If you're so sure Djokovic will lose no more than 2 matches on hard courts this season, what's the problem, cowboy? Why change the challenge if we're talking about the unbeaten "king" here?


I can't believe you're the one questioning my English here. This will be my last time repeating meself. I changed it, because i want to speed up the proces. I want you gone as soon as possible, troll!

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 05:01 PM
I can't believe you're the one questioning my English here. This will be my last time repeating meself. I changed it, because i want to speed up the proces. I want you gone as soon as possible, troll!

What's with the rush? If it bothers you so much why don't we make a deal and stop replying to each other once the season is done. My challenge is there for the taking, though. Take it or beat it, I'm not taking any challenges of yours since the idea was mine

YodaKnowsBest
04-17-2011, 05:05 PM
What's with the rush? If it bothers you so much why don't we make a deal and stop replying to each other once the season is done. My challenge is there for the taking, though. Take it or beat it, I'm not taking any challenges of yours since the idea was mine

Can you explain to me why you won't accept the challange? Are you doubting the greatest claycourter of all time?

tennis_pro
04-17-2011, 05:14 PM
Can you explain to me why you won't accept the challange? Are you doubting the greatest claycourter of all time?

I wouldn't accept your challenge even if you were fighting a lost case with Mardy freaking Fish against Nadal on clay, just for the sake of it.

It all started with Djokovic being the "king of hard courts" and I brought you Federer's results of 2006. I have no idea what clay and facing Nadal on the surface has to do with it.

mcr619619
04-17-2011, 06:09 PM
Nadal, denies a bunch of titles From fed