Rafa pulls out of Abu Dhabi touney!!!

[veroniquem]

Interesting list.sampras has the first 3 and all at Wimby lol. Federer's highest place is 19th.

To be honest though this is impossible to work out. The toughest draw is playing the guys who are playing best at the time regardless of ranking and the way players matchup also plays a part.

But good work crunching the numbers anyway, still useful to see

Thank you! Totally agree with you this is strictly "on paper". It doesn't tell the whole story but it's the only piece of info we have that is not subjective. It really seems like Sampras's last Wimbledons were all more or less gifted to him (sorry to all the Sampras fans...)

 

[Towser83]

Thank you! Totally agree with you this is strictly "on paper". It doesn't tell the whole story but it's the only piece of info we have that is not subjective. It really seems like Sampras's last Wimbledons were all more or less gifted to him (sorry to all the Sampras fans...)

Yeah these are still intesresting stats to see. I wouldn't say Pete didn't earn them, he was a good enough player at his best to win them, I don't know if in his last few years he was good enough though. Maybe he was. Just interesting to see that when so many samptards say Federer had easy competition and Sampras was defeating the hardest draws known to man

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Not surprised to see Sampras at Wimbledon being the top 3. In the 1990s it was common for grasscourt specialists to knockout the higher-seeded players. Even though Wimbledon adapts their seeds to reflect previous records at Wimbledon, it still doesn't alter the picture enough. In the 21st Century there are very few grasscourt specialists, so you don't see this happen as much. Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s.

 

[veroniquem]

Yeah these are still intesresting stats to see. I wouldn't say Pete didn't earn them, he was a good enough player at his best to win them, I don't know if in his last few years he was good enough though. Maybe he was. Just interesting to see that when so many samptards say Federer had easy competition and Sampras was defeating the hardest draws known to man

There is no possible way to contest that Fed is the best grass court player in open era so far. He has the best winning % on the surface (87.3), the most titles won (12) and the most Wimbledon won (tie with Sampras). Of course, it becomes a bit trickier when it's a matter of "all time". But in open era, no ambiguity at this point.

 

[The_Order]

Easiest slam draws (for winners) in open era:

1- Sampras: Wimbledon 2000: highest ranked opponent: # 21
2- Sampras: Wimbledon 1997: # 18
3- Sampras: Wimbledon 1998: # 17
4- Agassi: AO 2003: # 16
5- Wilander: AO 1984: # 15/ 21
6- Agassi: AO 2001: # 15/18
7- Kafelnikov: AO 1999: 13
8- Lendl: RG 1986: 12
9- Johansson: AO 2002: 11/ 23
10- Wilander: RG 1988: 11/ 14
11- Lendl: AO 1989: 11/ 13
12- Edberg: AO 1987: 9/ 24
13- Ferrero: RG 2003: 9/ 20
14- Courier: RG 1992: 8
15- Nadal: RG 2010: 7/ 21
16- Sampras: USO 1993: 7/ 14
17- Costa: RG 2002: 7/ 11
18- Hewitt: USO 2001: 7/ 10
19- Federer: W 2003: 6/ 12/ 45
20- Federer: W 2009: 6/ 12/ 32
21- Muster: RG 1995: 6/ 9
22- Federer: AO 2006: 5/ 25
23- Sampras: AO 1997: 5/ 13
24- Federer: RG 2009: 5/ 10

And this is a complete list of the slams won without having to play a top 4 player. Enjoy! (Notice that Nadal has 1, Djoko 0 and Fed 4. Sampras has 5, Agassi: 2. )

Where's Fed's AO07 and AO10 draws? He didn't play a top 4 player in those 2 either.

So Fed actually has the most with 6! Compared to Nadal's 1.

 

[pringles]

Where's Fed's AO07 and AO10 draws? He didn't play a top 4 player in those 2 either.

So Fed actually has the most with 6! Compared to Nadal's 1.

Not sure but I think Roddick and Murray were both ranked in the top 4 when they played Federer but both were seeded 5th.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Easiest slam draws (for winners) in open era:

1- Sampras: Wimbledon 2000: highest ranked opponent: # 21
2- Sampras: Wimbledon 1997: # 18
3- Sampras: Wimbledon 1998: # 17
4- Agassi: AO 2003: # 16
5- Wilander: AO 1984: # 15/ 21
6- Agassi: AO 2001: # 15/18
7- Kafelnikov: AO 1999: 13
8- Lendl: RG 1986: 12
9- Johansson: AO 2002: 11/ 23
10- Wilander: RG 1988: 11/ 14
11- Lendl: AO 1989: 11/ 13
12- Edberg: AO 1987: 9/ 24
13- Ferrero: RG 2003: 9/ 20
14- Courier: RG 1992: 8
15- Nadal: RG 2010: 7/ 21
16- Sampras: USO 1993: 7/ 14
17- Costa: RG 2002: 7/ 11
18- Hewitt: USO 2001: 7/ 10
19- Federer: W 2003: 6/ 12/ 45
20- Federer: W 2009: 6/ 12/ 32
21- Muster: RG 1995: 6/ 9
22- Federer: AO 2006: 5/ 25
23- Sampras: AO 1997: 5/ 13
24- Federer: RG 2009: 5/ 10

And this is a complete list of the slams won without having to play a top 4 player. Enjoy! (Notice that Nadal has 1, Djoko 0 and Fed 4. Sampras has 5, Agassi: 2. )

That is YOUR definition of "easiest".

Having in mind the nature of the Majors (5 sets) I would say, that the average seeding of the opponents faced, is at least as important.

And there are many more things to be considered (inform players, presence/absence of surface specialists etc.).

 

[The_Order]

Not sure but I think Roddick and Murray were both ranked in the top 4 when they played Federer but both were seeded 5th.

Roddick was the 6th seed in 2007. Murray was the 5th seed therefore he wasn't top 4 for the tournament. Therefore, I am completely correct and Federer tops the list with 6 draws where he has not had to face a top 4 player!

 

[Steve0904]

I'd just like to post this from the link a couple of pages back to sbengte's thread on average opponent ranking. (If I am allowed.) It's from the user "slice bh compliment" and I think it sums this issue up beatifully.

I appreciate all of the analysis, but I see it like this:

If you like a player and he loses, he had a brutal draw.
If you like a player and he win, he had a tough draw.
If you dislike a player and he loses, he was outplayed.
If you dislike a player and he wins, he had an easy draw.

Then you post about it on a forum.

 

[merlinpinpin]

So Nadal's US Open draw was the biggest joke in years? Was that until Federer's draw in this year's Wimbledon? Funny how that never gets brought up in all the haranguing against Nadal.

Federer had Ramos (43), Fognini (68 ), Benneteau (32), Malisse (75), Youzhny (33) (whose wife had just had a baby the night before), Djokovic (1) (still reeling from losing the FO which he had set as his biggest goal for the year), Murrray (4).

Compared to Gabashvilli (93), Istomin (39), Simon (42), Lopez (25), Verdasco (8 ), Youzhny (14), Djokovic (3).

Hmmm. Seems to me Federer's draw was the easiest.

That's because you obviously didn't understand the seed premise--the *lower* the number, the better the player, generally speaking.

So, for example, #1 is supposed to be a tougher opponent than #93. :roll:

 

[merlinpinpin]

Nah, Fed's 2012 WIM was a harder draw than Rafa's USO 2010.

But there are quite a few **** easy draws Fed has had, particularly his AO wins. He's only EVER beaten ONE top 4 opponent in ALL of his AO wins. Oh and that was JC Ferrero lol.

His 2006 draw was absolutely absurd they might as well have just given it to him before they started.

Then there's his 2009 RG, he won a career slam by not beating the greatest clay courter. Now the ****s will all jump and say that's not his fault, but the truth is, he's had 5 other opportunities to take out Nadal at RG and he never got close.

Nadal otoh DID beat the greatest grass courter to take Wimbledon...

Getting to his last match in a title-winning AO is enough to show how accurate your post is--Murray in the AO 2010 final.

A piece of advice: the key to good trolling is to get your facts and figures right, not to get them all wrong, a la NadalAgassi... :roll:

Wow, never realized that.

Well, you didn't miss much, obviously, as it's not true.

 

[pringles]

Roddick was the 6th seed in 2007. Murray was the 5th seed therefore he wasn't top 4 for the tournament. Therefore, I am completely correct and Federer tops the list with 6 draws where he has not had to face a top 4 player!

One can be seeded 5th but be ranked 4th at the same time. I remember this year Federer jumped to number 2 in the rankings after winning Madrid but was seeded 3rd for the tournament in Rome. So Djokovic by taking him out in the Rome semi-finals actually beat the world no 2 and lost to the world no 3 Nadal in the final.

I'm pretty sure Murray was ranked 4th at the time of his meeting with Federer in the 2010 AO final but was seeded 5th for the tournament. Not sure about Roddick - I would be grateful if someone could help me out here.

Btw you can't be "completely" correct.

 

[Steve0904]

Another thing is that draws are not about facing only top 4 players. They are about facing the player that is the best at the time. Saying so and so (in this case Federer's 06 AO) had an easy draw is extremely disrespectful to all the players he beat, and especially Baghdatis who played fantastic tennis to make the final.

It is the same with Fed's 07 AO. It is disrespectful to Gonzalez to basically discount how great he played to make the final which included a straight set thrashing of #2 Nadal, not to mention that Federer did not lose a set that whole GS. The players playing in the final are the #1 and #2 best players (regarding who actually wins) for that tournament regardless of seeding.

To say Fed's AO 10 draw is a joke is quite frankly a joke. Murray was only seeded #5 and he was clearly the second best player of that tournament ahead of a healthy Nadal (yes I have basically said that Nadal was healthy when he lost), and Davydenko had beaten Federer twice in the lead up to the AO, and gave him a big scare at said AO. This is the same for Nadal and Djokovic.

How many rational people think Nadal wouldn't have won the USO with a tougher draw. He would have won regardless because he played fantastic. This also stands for Fed`s RG 09 just in case anybody`s wondering. The reason for this is because Nadals injuries are his own fault. People need to learn to deal with that and stop blabbing about poor Rafa.

Having said that this goes for all Nadal's RG draws as well. How many times do we hear that Nadal has no competition on clay or he got as easy draw at RG? Really and people wonder why that is? I won`t go on about Djokovic, but it is the same premise.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

That's because you obviously didn't understand the seed premise--the *lower* the number, the better the player, generally speaking.

So, for example, #1 is supposed to be a tougher opponent than #93. :roll:

And Nadal wins the draw argument again. Nadal faced an average seed of #32 vs federer's #36.6.

 

[pringles]

Roddick was the 6th seed in 2007. Murray was the 5th seed therefore he wasn't top 4 for the tournament. Therefore, I am completely correct and Federer tops the list with 6 draws where he has not had to face a top 4 player!

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=18.01.2010&r=1&c=#

The official ATP website states that when the AO began (18 January) Murray was the 4th ranked player in the world. Because the seeds were announced the week before - Murray was seeded 5th for the tournament. Which makes your statement false.

I'll check Roddick at the 07 AO in a second.

 

[merlinpinpin]

deleted post

 

[Steve0904]

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=18.01.2010&r=1&c=#

The official ATP website states that when the AO began (18 January) Murray was the 4th ranked player in the world. Because the seeds were announced the week before - Murray was seeded 5th for the tournament. Which makes your statement false.

I'll check Roddick at the 07 AO in a second.

Roddick was ranked 7th and seeded 6th.

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=08.01.2007&r=1&c=#, (ranked and therefore seeded 6th at the AO here)

http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=15.01.2007&r=1&c=# (ranked 7th here).

AO started on January 15th 2007 that year, and rankings used to seed for the AO are January 8th 2007 rankings. Interestingly enough Roddick would be ranked 4th at the conclusion of that Australian Open.

Here it is: http://www.atpworldtour.com/Rankings/Singles.aspx?d=29.01.2007&r=1&c=#

I guess I better edit this again in case some idiot comes in, and talks about rankings at the end of tournaments. I have no view on this. I was simply putting it in as an interesting bit of information because for example someone else could say that Federer beat 2nd ranked Djokovic in the Wimbledon SF`s in 2012 going by the rankings after the event.

 

[Gonzo_style]

Get out of here with that babbling. You sound exactly like Mustard when you say that crap about Nadal's 2010 USO victory. He had an easy draw and took advantage of it. The end.

Shut up you stupid troll! Stop living in illusion! Federer wouldn't have defeated Nadal in USO 2010 if he managed to convert one of the MP against Djokovic in semi-final. Djokovic, who has the best score on HC against Nadal, failed!

 

[Towser83]

Not surprised to see Sampras at Wimbledon being the top 3. In the 1990s it was common for grasscourt specialists to knockout the higher-seeded players. Even though Wimbledon adapts their seeds to reflect previous records at Wimbledon, it still doesn't alter the picture enough. In the 21st Century there are very few grasscourt specialists, so you don't see this happen as much. Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s.

so as a complete ******* you say that federer and djokovic would win wimbledon in the 80s/90s but Nadal wouldn't? Ok..

There is but Nadalno possible way to contest that Fed is the best grass court player in open era so far. He has the best winning % on the surface (87.3), the most titles won (12) and the most Wimbledon won (tie with Sampras). Of course, it becomes a bit trickier when it's a matter of "all time". But in open era, no ambiguity at this point.

in terms of numbers yes. if someone think Pete is still the better grass court player that's their opinion and they have the right to it but a lot of these saptards are so blind about how both players rank on grass and act like federer is way below sampras when all the stats say otherwise..

 

[RAFA2005RG]

so as a complete ******* you say that federer and djokovic would win wimbledon in the 80s/90s but Nadal wouldn't? Ok..

Can you read?

When did I say federer/djokovic would win Wimbledon?

I said "Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s."

That means Djokovic, Nadal, Federer would probably not win Wimbledon in the 1980s/1990s.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

in terms of numbers yes. if someone think Pete is still the better grass court player that's their opinion and they have the right to it but a lot of these saptards are so blind about how both players rank on grass and act like federer is way below sampras when all the stats say otherwise..

The stats are useless. Why? The 21st Century is the weakest era of "grasscourt tennis" in history. Prime Sampras would never drop a set at Wimbledon in this era. And before you say "but the courts are slower and would not suit Sampras" just watch the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras rarely came to the net, and blew Agassi off the court like he was nothing. Look at how lethal Sampras' topspin backhand was, his weakest shot was dynamic on grass.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Can you read?

When did I say federer/djokovic would win Wimbledon?

I said "Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s."

That means Djokovic, Nadal, Federer would probably not win Wimbledon in the 1980s/1990s.

Actually, Towser *can* read, you're obviously the one who can't.

Djokovic won in 2011, Federer in 2003, 2004, and 2012.

Nadal is the only one of the three who "only" won during 2005-2010. Nice job owning yourself.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Actually, Towser *can* read, you're obviously the one who can't.

Djokovic won in 2011, Federer in 2003, 2004, and 2012.

Nadal is the only one of the three who "only" won during 2005-2010. Nice job owning yourself.

Are you on drugs? I said from 2005-2010. Federer won Wimbledon in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. And when did I use the word "ONLY"? You are a joke.

Ok Djokovic didn't win until 2011, but its a given he would never win Wimbledon in the 1980s and 1990s if Federer/Nadal can't. Djokovic is the weakest of the 3 on grass.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Are you on drugs? Federer won Wimbledon in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. Ok Djokovic didn't win until 2011, but its a given he would never win Wimbledon in the 1980s and 1990s if Federer/Nadal can't. Djokovic is the weakest of the 3 on grass.

Hey, *you're* the one who wrote this. You've got a beef with the guy who said that, go talk to your mirror or something.

 

[Feather]

Actually, Towser *can* read, you're obviously the one who can't.

Djokovic won in 2011, Federer in 2003, 2004, and 2012.

Nadal is the only one of the three who "only" won during 2005-2010. Nice job owning yourself.

Funny to see him owned by his own statement

I think he is a secret Federer fan

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Hey, *you're* the one who wrote this. You've got a beef with the guy who said that, go talk to your mirror or something.

You are a joke. When did I use the word "ONLY"?

 

[Feather]

Hey, *you're* the one who wrote this. You've got a beef with the guy who said that, go talk to your mirror or something.

He talks to himself in this forum :wink:

 

[RAFA2005RG]

Hey merlin, when did I use the word "ONLY"?

 

[Steve0904]

Are you on drugs? I said from 2005-2010. Federer won Wimbledon in 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2009. And when did I use the word "ONLY"? You are a joke.

Ok Djokovic didn't win until 2011, but its a given he would never win Wimbledon in the 1980s and 1990s if Federer/Nadal can't. Djokovic is the weakest of the 3 on grass.

Just admit you got owned. Federer has won 3 Wimbledons outside of the time period you posted, therefore saying that anyone that won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win in the 80 or 90's automatically does not prove that Federer wouldn't have been able to do it. And it doesn't prove anything about Djokovic whatsoever technically. So it "only" includes Nadal by basic logic although it could also include Federer.Therefore by your logic I could say that you proved that Nadal is the most unlikely of the 3 (considering you used the word "probably", which saved your bacon) to win a Wimbledon in the 80's or 90's.

 

[sunof tennis]

You are a joke. When did I use the word "ONLY"?

Better question-If you meant to exclude Federer, why didn't you say from 2003 on?
Since Federer actually won playing serve and volley, he is the most likely to have won in previous eras (but don't let logic stand in your way)

 

[forzamilan90]

Just admit you got owned. Federer has won 3 Wimbledons outside of the time period you posted, therefore saying that anyone that won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win in the 80 or 90's automatically does not prove that Federer wouldn't have been able to do it. And it doesn't prove anything about Djokovic whatsoever technically. So it "only" includes Nadal by basic logic although it could also include Federer.Therefore by your logic I could say that you proved that Nadal is the most unlikely of the 3 (considering you used the word "probably", which saved your bacon) to win a Wimbledon in the 80's or 90's.

Yed conceptually he did get owned on that one

 

[Towser83]

Can you read?

When did I say federer/djokovic would win Wimbledon?

I said "Anyone who won a Wimbledon from 2005-2010 would probably not win Wimbledon in the 80s/90s."

That means Djokovic, Nadal, Federer would probably not win Wimbledon in the 1980s/1990s.

can you understand?

Djokovic won wimbledon in 2011 and federer won in 2003, 2004 and 2012 - all outside of the time period you mentioned. Nadal is the only one to have won ONLY within the period you stated.

 

[Steve0904]

Yed conceptually he did get owned on that one

I think he's gone to switch accounts now, and pretend it never happened.

 

[joeri888]

The stats are useless. Why? The 21st Century is the weakest era of "grasscourt tennis" in history. Prime Sampras would never drop a set at Wimbledon in this era. And before you say "but the courts are slower and would not suit Sampras" just watch the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras rarely came to the net, and blew Agassi off the court like he was nothing. Look at how lethal Sampras' topspin backhand was, his weakest shot was dynamic on grass.

So Bastl and Krajicek could beat Sampras on fast grass, and he lost sets to guys like Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic, ALL THE TIME, he would not lose a set at today's wimbledon, because guys like Federer and Nadal are not as good as Rafter and Ivanisevic? Oh please.. Even today's Lleyton Hewitt could take a tiebreak from Pete if he played a great set.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays.

 

[Steve0904]

This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays.

See, I knew you would switch accounts after being embarrassed. I'd be so embarrassed I don't know if I'd come back to this thread, but maybe that's just me.

 

[underground]

This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays.

RAFA2005RG got owned so much by his own statement he's too embarrassed so he has to use the other account to post something completely irrelevant to change the topic. :twisted:

 

[Kalin]

I'd rather have Masha as the face of tennis.

Rafa can be the other side...

 

[underground]

I'd rather have Masha as the face of tennis.

Rafa can be the other side...

Rafa can have the butt pick.

 

[6-1 6-3 6-0]

See, I knew you would switch accounts after being embarrassed. I'd be so embarrassed I don't know if I'd come back to this thread, but maybe that's just me.

Yeah, it's just you. At least you can feel a sense of belonging on the most paranoid forum in existence, Talk Tennis, where people genuinely believe I have multiple accounts. :lol: Or maybe you're the one with the multiple accounts? See, I can be paranoid too.

 

[TheF1Bob]

This is arguably the most exciting period in tennis since RolandGarros2012. What tournament will Nadal play? When will he be back? How high can he raise the Masters 1000 title count? Let's face it, Nadal is the face of tennis nowadays.

 

[Feather]

So Bastl and Krajicek could beat Sampras on fast grass, and he lost sets to guys like Agassi, Rafter, Ivanisevic, ALL THE TIME, he would not lose a set at today's wimbledon, because guys like Federer and Nadal are not as good as Rafter and Ivanisevic? Oh please.. Even today's Lleyton Hewitt could take a tiebreak from Pete if he played a great set.

Bastl didn't beat Sampras on fast grass. Sampras would win on fast grass against Bastl even if he had played in wheelchair..

 

[underground]

And now TheF1Bob comes back to join us against the army of multiple accounts.

And that is one long gif

 

[Towser83]

Hey merlin, when did I use the word "ONLY"?

so you're saying if federer only won in 2003 and 2004 then he would have proved he would have won in the 80s/90s but winning in 06, 07 and 09 counteracted this? Lol. even if this makes sense then look at another post of yours.

The stats are useless. Why? The 21st Century is the weakest era of "grasscourt tennis" in history. Prime Sampras would never drop a set at Wimbledon in this era. And before you say "but the courts are slower and would not suit Sampras" just watch the 1999 Wimbledon final where Sampras rarely came to the net, and blew Agassi off the court like he was nothing. Look at how lethal Sampras' topspin backhand was, his weakest shot was dynamic on grass.

yeah but if sampras won it in any year from 2005-2010 that would prove he couldn't have won it in the 80s/90s. so he couldn't have won it most years federer did. YOU JUST OWNED YOURSELF AGAIN HAHAHAH!!

Look you specified 2005-2010 meaning the years outside that are exempt. meaning if you won it outside those years could have won in the 80s/90s. doesn't matter if they then won it again later on, just makes them even better.

But really dents your Nadal is the goat argument when you say he couldn't win on real grass.

 

[chatt_town]

Is that a good reason to pull out? Match play?

I have a feeling that he might pull out of AO too citing lack of match play as a reason...

 

[TheF1Bob]

And now TheF1Bob comes back to join us against the army of multiple accounts.

And that is one long gif

With AO on the horizon, TheF1Bob is back and fully refreshed to take on the likes of NSK & Co.

And yes... that gif is long.

so you're saying if federer only won in 2003 and 2004 then he would have proved he would have won in the 80s/90s but winning in 06, 07 and 09 counteracted this? Lol. even if this makes sense then look at another post of yours.



yeah but if sampras won it in any year from 2005-2010 that would prove he couldn't have won it in the 80s/90s. so he couldn't have won it most years federer did. YOU JUST OWNED YOURSELF AGAIN HAHAHAH!!

Look you specified 2005-2010 meaning the years outside that are exempt. meaning if you won it outside those years could have won in the 80s/90s. doesn't matter if they then won it again later on, just makes them even better.

But really dents your Nadal is the goat argument when you say he couldn't win on real grass.

Lets be honest guys, if Fed, Nadal, Novak played in the 90's, their games would be different. Hell, Djokovic in '07 is different from Djokovic '12 and that's not that long ago (same Era).

 

[Steve0904]

With AO on the horizon, TheF1Bob is back and fully refreshed to take on the likes of NSK & Co.

And yes... that gif is long.



Lets be honest guys, if Fed, Nadal, Novak played in the 90's, their games would be different. Hell, Djokovic in '07 is different from Djokovic '12 and that's not that long ago (same Era).

Wow. I actually agree with this, but when NSK owns himself it is so funny that nobody can help but point it out multiple times.

 

[RAFA2005RG]

2005-2010 Federer would have had no chance against Prime Sampras at Wimbledon. 2005-2010 Nadal would have fared better, because he's on the same level as Sampras mentally, but Sampras would have been the likely winner in that matchup too (at Wimbledon). Nadal would have owned Sampras at the Australian Open and French Open.

 

[veroniquem]

Where's Fed's AO07 and AO10 draws? He didn't play a top 4 player in those 2 either.

So Fed actually has the most with 6! Compared to Nadal's 1.

Sorry, I should have been more specific about the list. It is a list of players who won a slam by facing either 0 or 1 top 8 player AND 0 player in the top 4. In AO 2007, yes, Fed didn't face a top 4 player but he played 2 top 8 players: 6 and 7 (easy enough but not as easy as the draws on my list). In AO 2010, Fed faced # 6 and # 4. Playing 1 top 8 and 1 top 4 is the most common way of winning a slam, nothing special about it. (Once again, this is a matter of fact observation about draws ON PAPER, it is not a subjective evaluation on how those players fared on any given day. I am just trying to bring a smidge of objectivity to a highly subjective/biassed debate).

 

[veroniquem]

in terms of numbers yes. if someone think Pete is still the better grass court player that's their opinion and they have the right to it but a lot of these saptards are so blind about how both players rank on grass and act like federer is way below sampras when all the stats say otherwise..

You know me and how I have 0 personal interest in defending Fed's records but for the sake of fairness, not only does Fed have a non negligible higher winning % on grass than Sampras and more titles overall but he also has 1 more final at Wimbledon and he's still active, so the difference could even increase. I guess one could always argue that Halle never had a field as competitive as Queen's. Still, not enough to go against every # available.