Discussion in 'General Pro Player Discussion' started by JennyS, Dec 18, 2009.
Many argue its just because it was because Fed had mono and was having more of an off year in 08.
Why would she? Because she's a Fed fan? What I like about Jenny's threads is that she gives us the facts and let us debate, she never bashes anyone and hardly even expreses her opinion (the facts usually speak for themselves).
Good job Jenny, keep up the quality threads.
Murray is 6-4 against Fed, WOW, that's crazy :neutral:
Seriosuly, Fed is 1-0 against Murray at slams and 4-1 against Djokovic at slams (most of the wins being against PEAK Djokovic). You really have no case.
Also, no shame in losing to Roddick, but don't act like Roddick and Federer had their only match at Wimbldeon this year. Not all of their matches have been this close and the H2H is about 19-2 to Federer (and I think Roddick is a fantastic player who's underrated around here).
Djokovic beat Federer convincingly in his home town. And Murray still has a positive H2H with Federer.
If he'd played 2006 Federer, I highly doubt that would be the case. All players get negative H2Hs eventually - they get older and lose to younger players.
They never played in Cincinnati 06 and Murray didn't win in 3???
Of course I have a case. Murray, is 6-4 against Roger, you don't think that makes him a viable threat?! Isn't that the same h2h that Krajicek had against Sampras?
There have been plenty of matches where Roddick has played well against Roger, 2004 Wimbledon, 2006 US Open final and the 2006 YEC. It's not like Roddick was slaughtered in every match they played.
LOL who cares about if. If Federer didnt exist then Nadal would have been the clear #1 every year since 1995 now. It doesnt work like that. Nadal deserves credit for taking down Federer in so many big finals which Agassi failed to do in big matches vs great players not only Sampras and Federer in his twilight years but Courier, Lendl, and others as well. Nadal also completely dominated a surface- clay, which Agassi was never good enough to do. The huge consistency edge goes to Nadal already as well.
If you want to talk about luck and competition Agassi padded his slam total by taking advantage of having his late career surge against the joke 2000-2003 field, you know the same field that produced Hewitt as the clear #1 in both 2001 and 2002, Costa and Johansson as slam winners, Haas at #2 in the World for awhile, etc...Yeah at the end of his career he dominated the Aussie for a bit when he was playing Schuettler, Grosjean, washed up Ferreira, and Clement to do so.
Which players from 2007 on are better than players from 2003-2006?
Roddick was playing average in 2006, even at the US open. Federer was playing really well.
Nadal was getting better by then obviously. Djokovic and Murray are atleast better players than Davydenko, Nalbandian, and Ljubicic who made up top 5 spots in 2005 and 2006.
Roddick, Hewitt, Safin?
Most people think in the longer term Djokovic, Murray, and Del Potro are better than Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin. At the very least they are tougher opponents for Roger. Anyway Hewitt and Safin were done after 2005.
That's probably right...Hewitt's game was good for early 2000s. Later on, he was too weak. Safin could have been much better with more luck and commitment to the sport.
I guess that'a reasonable assesment.
I believe it has more to do with Fed's decline rather than Murray, Djokovic and Delpo being better players than Roddick, Hewiit and Safin.
True, that was just one match though, from which not too much can be gleaned. They didn't meet consistently back then.
LOL! You said "If he'd played 2006 Federer, I highly doubt that would be the case (losing H2H)" I just proved you wrong and now you are picking at straws. You obviously never watched the match, yet you make seem as if you have. Murray beat Federer in his prime, your excuses are abysmal.
But he has a point about Hewitt and Safin. They were gone by the end of 2005. Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro were still kids.
So, what was Federer's competition from late 2005 until middle of 2007? Roddick and Nadal (who still wasn't good enough on hardcourts or even grass in 2006). There was also the tortured genius Davydenko and Nalbandian, but were badly inconsistent.
I think they are clearly better than Roddick and Hewitt, Safin was something else.
Murray, playing a style similar to Hewitts, defeated Federer in 2006, (Murray was 19 years old) and Fed was in his absolute prime.
In the same way that Hewitt was a much better Chang, Murray is a much better Hewitt.
I thought it would be interesting to do this because people have said that Federer's era was weaker, so I've been curious to look up stats comparing the two.
If the Haas/Philippoussis/Kuerten/Moya generation switched places with the Nadal/Djokovic/Del Potro/Murray generation, I think Federer would have won even more Slams in the second half of this decade.
BTW, I actually am a fan of Sampras. I don't like him as much as Federer, but I enjoyed watching him play (I could watch that serve for hours!)
Another Cesc Fabregas post where he doesn't dispute the post and attacks the source.
Good going, broski!
sampras played rafter only once? thats not right jenny
Meanwhile, here are the stats for the first halves of the last two decades
Total Slam semis made during the first half of the 90's:
1st half of this decade:
So obviously, the first half of the 90's was way stronger than the first half of the 00's.
from 1995-1999 they only met once: the 1998 US Open. They met twice in the next decade.
Agassi made more SF in the 1st half of this decade than the previous one. He won more too. Sampras won 2/5 slams in this decade, while he won 7/8 in the previous one.
I dont know if they are better players but they are tougher matchups for Federer. Yes Federer isnt as great as 2004-2007. He still is winning slams, making almost all the finals, and ranked #1 though. Federer is just an awful matchup for Roddick and Hewitt. The way Nadal is a bad matchup for Federer. I do think most would expect Murray, Djokovic, and Del Potro collectively to surpass what Roddick, Hewitt, and Safin achieved collectively by the time their careers are all completely finished. Only time will tell on that though.
I do not believe the Hewitt of 2004-2005 or Roddick of 2003-2004 would have as many wins over the current Federer as Murray or Djokovic, nor to do the kind of damage to the current Federer that Del Potro did this year.
Roddick/Hewitt/Safin/Gaudio/JCF and even Federer were better back in the period you mentioned.
Well, it depends. Clearly Roddick/Hewitt/Safin were better players many years ago, but they had different games, for example Roddick owns Djokovic now but who's to say that his 03/04 game would be useless against him. Tennis is all about matchups....
Davydenko is the sign of consistency, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. Hewitt was gone in 2005? Really? Where were you when he almost beat Fed in Cincy 2007? Where were you when Safin reached Wimbledon semi in 2008? Sure, they were not consistent with results, but they were hardly "gone". Djokovic wasn't a kid in 2007, he won MS titles, reached a slam final, and right at the start f 2008 won a slam. That's prime Djokovic as far as I'm concerned. Delpo has a losing record against Fed (despite beating him lately) in his prime, and Murray has a winning record (by 2 matches only) and lost their GS match.
Really? Djokovic is better than Roddick? Well, maybe, but Roddick still owned him in 2009, going 3-0 in 2009 alone. Murray also win most of their matches, but like Murray does usually, he lost their most important match (W 09 SF). Murray did beat Fed in 2006, but if you recall Fed was nearly dead at the time after reaching every final of every tourney that year.
Uhh, Djokovic's year was awful. He was out of sorts but then you saw the real him towards the closing stages of the season. Here we go, another pitiful excuse..."Federer was nearly dead playing Murray" so how can you explain him winning the US Open a few weeks later????
interesting stats as aways jenny....however i dont think the numbers can be used to argue 90s was stronger...for example...for argument sake...the next 5 years we are suddenly blessed with 20 players the caliber of federer, which will share the SFs made pretty evenly in GS since their ability are pretty evenly matched. so that the top 8 or so performers will have a total SF appearance of less than the ones quoted above by u, eventhough the competition is obviously way stronger.
dont think i've explained very well...but hope u know what i am trying to say
Yep, Murray might be technically better than both Roddick & Hewitt. But he will be lucky to achieve what they did.
^^^^Djokovic's year wasn't uwful, he managed to get back his #3 spot and even had chances for #2. He wasn't fit enough at the AO, haas is just a tough matchup for Djokovic and Federer is Federer.
The only GS match that Djokovic failed was against Kohlly at the FO. Roddick isn't a bad loss, neither is haas or Federer.
1) Djokovic is in his prime since late 2007, and the fact he had a "bad" year it's his own fault. It was not such a bad year, he won the most matches of anyone in the tour, it's just that he lost more that other top players too and was never able to truly win the big ones.
2) Federer was tired, but I never used it as an excuse. He lost and that's it, and he has a losing H2H to Murray anyway, however Federer did win their most important match, and I'm sure Murray would trade his wins for that one single most important match.
You are the failing one buddy.
Yes, Hewiit was gone after 2005 (that Cinci was just one tournament). He even lost to Djokovic at Wimbledon (Djokovic's worst surface, as we all know).
Yes, Safin was also gone by the end of 2005. Wimbledon 2008 was his only important achievement in majors since 2005 and it happened on grass, which makes it even more unusual.
Why was SW09 their most important match and not SW06?
I mean Davydenko's mental inconsistency in matches he played with Fed (Australian 06 and RG 07).
Safin was a non factor for most of 2005 but he did win AO and played one heck of a match to beat peak Fed there(apart from Rome 2006 I don't think I've ever seen Fed play that well and stil lose).Hewitt was actually playing very well that year,it's just that peak Fed and on fire Safin are very tougn competition(Hewitt lost to Marat at AO and Fed at Wimby and USO).
Overall Hewitt's slam results in 2005 were:
AO-Final(the only time in his career he reached the final there)
RG-didn't play(not that he was ever that much of a factor on clay anyway)
Not too shabby,better than both Novak and Murray's slam results this year.
2005 is also the year Nadal began his domination at FO.
In 2006,yes Hewitt and Safin really declined but whatever people say about him(Sampras/Nadal fans call him a clown or whatever)Bagdathis did play some great tennis at AO that year,he beat Roddick,Ljubo and Nalbanian in a row who were all in good form,so wasn't a "clown" finalist as far as I'm concerned.
At 2006 Wimbledon Nadal came into his own on grass reaching a Wimbledon final and we all know how tough Nadal is for Fed on any surface.
At 2006 FO again Nadal on clay in a best of five,I'd say he's a tough competition.
At 2006 USO Roddick who teamed up with Connors was playing very well(he also played great at Cinncinati leading into USO)and gave Fed a good battle in the final(more than Murray did last year that's for certain),wasn't that of an easy match for Fed.
In 2007 you had Novak really coming into his own as a top player,reached FO+Wimbledon semis,reached USO final,won Montreal beating #1,#2 and #3 on the way to the title,much better than this year IMO.
2007 Wimbledon,Nadal got even closer to the title and pushed Fed to 5.
2007 FO,Nadal on clay in a best of five again.
So overall I'd still say Fed's compeition in 2005-2007 wasn't bad.It's tougher now arguably but I still think Fed's level of play declined since then and that also played part in him having weaker results overall.
1) Djokovic had a bad year compared to 07 and obviously 08. You can't say it's been good compared to these two years.
2) LOL! just to remind you what you said exactly since you appear to have forgotten "Fed was nearly dead at the time after reaching every final of every tourney that year". Now, if that's not an excuse then I don't have a clue what is!
Why don't you quit contradicting yourself buddy?
But 2006 wasn't a good year in terms of competition. There was only Roddick, and Nadal (still not that good on grass, though). I am talking about HC and grass.
I found this post in another thread.
I think it states the point very convincingly. If Hewitt, Safin, Roddick and Nalb were so consistently good, then how did they allow Johansson to win a slam, Arnaud to reach a slam final, Ferrero to reach USO final (claycourter on a fast HC), Agassi to win 2 titles and make USO final at the age of 35, and so on...
I am not a Sampras fan, and I don't think Sampras has any claim to being THE GREATEST anymore. Sampras played under the same rules as Fed (that is, doing his best to pick up the 4 slams) and just wasn't as successful as Fed.
I would offer that the first group (Agassi, Courier, Ivanisevic, Henman, Martin, Becker, Chang, Rafter, Krajiceck, Kafelnikov) is a much better group than this: Roddick, Djokovic, Hewitt, Safin, Davydenko, Del Potro, Soderling, Haas, Nalbandian, Murray.
And if your intricately subtle point is that Fed is better than Sampras, then . . . duh, already known.
Wait, what are we actually arguing about? I don't think that the current field is really that much better than before.
Courier was a non factor in Slams after 1995, Ivanisevic made only one SF outside of Wimbledon and outside of his two US Open wins, Rafter had his best Slam results in 2000 and 2001.
Let's consider this hypothetical: the players born in 1975-1979 switch places with the players born in 1985-1989. Obviously it's almost impossible to figure out the exact draws, but here are the most interesting scenarios
Federer almost certainly wins 2008 Wimbledon, 2005-2006 French Opens and 1998-1999 Australian Opens where the 75-79 generation either lost in the earlier rounds or wasn't good enough to beat Federer (1998 Rios loses to 2008 Federer even with mono!)
Federer's biggest challenges would be the 2007 French Open against 1997 Kuerten and the 2008 French Open against 1998 Moya.
1997-1998 Sampras may have had to face 2007-2008 Nadal to win those titles. Sampras wins the first, but Nadal may have had a shot at the second, although maybe not on 90's grass.
Sampras doesn't win any extra US Opens, as he lost to players of his own generation in the 1997 and 1998 events and didn't play 1999.
The only Slam he got knocked out of by a 75-79er was Mark Philippoussis in the 1996 Australian Open. I don't know how Sampras was playing at that event, but he still would have needed to go through Becker and Chang (plus Baghdatis).
This is very strange, what point are you trying to make?
I'm wondering if you are aware that neither Federer (1981) nor Sampras (1971) were born during these times, making them 4-8 years older than the players to whom you are comparing.
PS - And Becker was born in 1967!
It is in no way obvious at all!
You are somehow confusing low competitiveness levels with "strength". The opposite could just as credibly be argued. Your stats show that it was easier for the top players to be beaten in early rounds in the first half of the 00's, which strongly implies greater depth in the field.
It IS obvious from the stats you have given that the first half of the 00's was more competitive than the first half of the 90's.
The point I am making is that the "young guns" that Sampras had to face (Philippoussis, Haas, Moya and Kuerten) were no where near as tough as the Nadal/Djokovic/Del Potro/Murray generation that Federer had dealt with.
The only players to beat Federer since the 2005 Australian Open in Slams are all at least 5 years younger than him.
Sampras lost in the 1997 and 1998 US Opens to Korda and Rafter, his own contemporaries. He also lost in 1996 Wimbledon to Richard Krajicek, another player around his age.
Because SW09 was both players near their best and in the semi-final, while SW06 was green Murray versus the worst version of Roddick ever seen in the 4th round.
Actually, Murray was not at his best but Roddick was. Serving absolute bombs. Murray couldn't return those.
There is a difference between stating a fact and using it as an excuse. Because you have trouble understanding, I'll explain:
Let's take for example Nadal's match with Federer at Madrid 2009 final. Nadal wasn't playing his very best in that match (neiter did Fed), but there are the *******s who will say Fed won because Nadal was tired, injured, blah blah, or the Nadal fans who congratulated Fed for a hard earned win, no matter the reasons. Federer won because he was the better player that day - was he the better play because Nadal was tired? Maybe, but who cares, he was still the better player, had the better serve, better tactics, was a bit more consistent and played well on crucial points.
Murray played a tired Federer in 2006, that's a fact, but it takes nothing away from Murray's win. It's Federer's fault he was tired, and once you go on court there are no excuses. He got beat fair and square and not surprisngly was able to return to top form two weeks later in the USO.
You can't expect from the players to play their best all the time, it's impossibe, not even for great players like Federer and Nadal. There are rarely matches when both players are on and play their best. What makes the top players special is the fact they can step it up on the big points where others can't. They have that extra gear when they need it, and that what seperates them from the rest of the tour.
Let's see, maybe because the W09 one was a freaking semi final?!!!
Oh please no, since reading your rather little dissertation was completely irrelevant and unnecessary. You are soo in denial that it's not even worth continuing a discussion with you. Chiao, buddy.
Separate names with a comma.