Let's see, he's the 5th or at worst 6th GOAT in my book and I "diminish Schubert totally" or somehow don't rank him very high? You want me to chant his Gloria at an altar or something?
From what I've gathered you seem to be well into your retirement yet wont to display a mentality befitting that of the Fed worshippers you love to moan about. Part of maturity is being able to disagree without misrepresenting the other side or accusing them of impure motives unless you have a solid ground for it. I've already told you Schubert is one of my favorite composers and prefer him to Brahms even though I tend to rank the latter higher.
BTW the throbbing piano accompaniment of Op. 100's 2nd movement is indeed based on the Swedish folk song, but not the main theme on cello, which turns a good wistful tune into a timeless dirge of the most profound grief and yearning. IMO it's one of the top 4-5 greatest melodies ever written, another candidate being Schubert's own Serenade (or Stšndchen for you Austrians/Germans).
I never said Schubert didn't write masterpieces in the longer forms. My only point was that he was for the most part not as comfortable with the extended forms as, say, Bach, Mozart or his hero Beethoven. This has been acknowledged by his champion Dvorak in an otherwise highly complimentary article (written before Schubert's music became widely recognized, I should add) and by none other than the Grove Dictionary. I'm by no means being blasphemous here.
I'll have to revisit the match sometime, but that wasn't exactly my impression. Also I think Fed tanked the 4th set to gear himself up for the 5th. It almost turned out to be the right decision... until he rolled in an overly safe 1st serve out wide on his 1st MP and Djoko made him pay with that big return seen around the world.
I definitely think Murray would've done better (all other things being equal, of course). I've said this before but Murray is the best returner of this era, above Djoko. To me this becomes clearer when I see them play each other.
A fun factoid: in all of Fed's Wimby finals Murray is the only opponent who won more than half of Fed's 2nd-serve points. In Pete's Agassi was the one. Each I'd say is the best returner of his generation.
Yeah, Nole is the one pick of Flink's that had my head scratching, and I say this as a fan (of both guys).
As you may recall I don't think the stats support the common (mis)conception that there's this big difference between "fast" and "slow" HCs. But if we're talking about the AO in particular I can see Djoko giving Pete all he could handle, though I'd still favor Pistol in the finals.
Let's say the player who won all his matches at the YEC was to receive some bonus points, enough to push Fed over Roddick. This would be a pretty "objective" system, don't you think? And that's just one among many possibilities.
To be clear I don't mean to discount the official ATP rankings completely. I remember Fed admitting that nerves got to him in his loss to Roddick at the Canada MS, as he was just about to become the official No. 1 for the 1st time in his career. Obviously there's no telling that Fed would've swept the YEC that same year had he been under the same pressure. Still that's not enough to make me treat the official rankings as some kind of a canon, because the ATP ranking system has seen and will likely see numerous changes over the organization's history--unlike, say, the prestige of the majors which has remained more or less the same since their inception (except for the AO) or, even better, that of the CYGS or the year-end No. 1 ranking (official or not) which, of course, carries a certain sociological weight limited not only to tennis.
Again let's say you give bonus points for beating the world's No. 1, even more for repeating the same over and over. You can say this is too subjective, but if you think about it we do this all the time when trying to judge the level of competition, the most impressive victories, etc.
Another thing to keep in mind is that rankings aren't there solely to assess the achievements of each and every player, but also to organize the tour and keep the tournament directors happy. That's why I disagree with the understandable but misguided view that the majors should carry more ranking points than under the current system, because such a heavy emphasis on the Slams would make players slack off even more at the smaller events than they do now. At the same time becoming a Slam champion is simply a huge milestone: though she/he was officially No. 1 many fans rightly didn't consider Wozniacki superior to Serena or Clijsters, or Rios to Sampras or Rafter. One can accept the current rankings for organizational purposes but devise their own for the "real" placements of the players.
Also, there's no rule set in stone that says there must be a single No. 1 for the year. I'm perfectly fine with Agassi sharing the prize with Pete in '95 & '99 (though, again, I do think Pistol was better), Vilas and/or Connors with Borg in '77, etc. In fact this is exactly what happens in a fair number of rankings for the previous years, and some of us "historians" err in applying this compromise to the old-timers but not to the more recent candidates.
But is the '60 championship all that different from, say, the YEC, where the top four players with the best H2Hs advance to the SFs? And was Pete not the best player until he himself became inactive... and also after he came back when he thrashed Agassi in the '99 YEC final? And what is tennis if not a collection of H2Hs? After all it's an individual game with only two opponents.
Again there are many ways to look at this. The ATP ranking system is just one of them.
Always a good approach... as long as you restrain restraining yourself at times.