Djokovic has a pretty cake draw...

[veroniquem]

To Fiji: Don't think so. I think Fed was extremely lucky Nadal, Djoko and Murray were not the same age as he is. It's not even clear if he would have made it to #1 if that had been the case.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

To Fiji: Don't think so. I think Fed was extremely lucky Nadal, Djoko and Murray were not the same age as he is. It's not even clear if he would have made it to #1 if that had been the case.

Like he did this year, at 31? You're a joker.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Hood_Man

I'm not sure what would count as a tough draw for a world #1 at the peak of his powers? In order to get to #1 you have to beat everyone consistently on the big stages, which makes beating everyone consistently on the big stages look easier than it probably is.

Was losing to Nadal at Roland Garros (in 4 sets), losing to Federer at Wimbledon (in 4 sets), and losing to Murray at US Open (6-2 in 5th) the peak of Djokovic's powers? If he doesn't win this Australian Open, I doubt he'll ever win a slam again. Murray has obviously turned the corner. Nadal is back in a couple of weeks, and Federer is still there.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

The WTF draw is debatable. Would you rather face Murray in the round-robins or in the Semifinal? Yeah, that's what I thought.

In the SF of course. Better have some warm-up matches beforehand. Fed didn't get the better draw at WTF? With Tipsy in his group? And I'm the one who's accused of hypocrisy, very funny...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Was losing to Nadal at Roland Garros (in 4 sets), losing to Federer at Wimbledon (in 4 sets), and losing to Murray at US Open (6-2 in 5th) the peak of Djokovic's powers?

Not losing to Rosol at Wimbledon, not losing to Berdych at the US Open, and not losing to Federer at the WTF makes it still the prime of Djokovic's powers.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

In the SF of course. Better have some warm-up matches beforehand. Fed didn't get the better draw at WTF? With Tipsy in his group? And I'm the one who's accused of hypocrisy, very funny...

I said it's debatable. Do you not know what the word means? Federer had the easier draw to make it to the Semifinal. Djokovic had (arguably) the easier draw to win the title.

And if you'd rather face Murray in the semifinal than in the roundrobins, you're not the sharpest tool in the shed.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Like he did this year, at 31? .

That is exactly my point. Fed established his domination before Nadal, Djoko and Murray broke through. He was very dominant and had tons of confidence (from beating up on Roddick, Hewitt and co). If instead of those guys, his contemporaries had been Murray, Djoko and Nadal, you think he would have established such a crushing domination in the first place? I doubt it.

[RAFA2005RG]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Not losing to Rosol at Wimbledon, not losing to Berdych at the US Open, and not losing to Federer at the WTF makes it still the prime of Djokovic's powers.

Wow, Nadal has really got to you. He doesn't even have to play and already he's on your mind. When Nadal is 90 years old, and you are beyond the grave, somehow you will still be thinking about Rosol's win over Nadal.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by RAFA2005RG

Wow, Nadal has really got to you. He doesn't even have to play and already he's on your mind. When Nadal is 90 years old, and you are beyond the grave, somehow you will still be thinking about Rosol's win over Nadal.

Nadal happens to be my second favorite player. So, of course, he is on my mind, especially when I'm posting on a Tennis forum.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

I said it's debatable. Do you not know what the word means? Federer had the easier draw to make it to the Semifinal. Djokovic had (arguably) the easier draw to win the title.

.

First of all, Delpo had better indoor results than Murray (won Basel and Vienna), so it's highly debatable whether at WTF, Murray was a tougher opponent than Delpo (on form). That theory is pretty much invalidated by the fact Fed lost his match vs Delpo (second match he lost to him indoor over a short time) but not vs Murray. Djoko won his matches vs both Murray and Delpo, and there is no indication it would have mattered 1 bit in what order he played them. If Fed can beat opponents only in a certain order, he has a problem for sure. Djoko, on top of having the tougher RR group, had to beat the 6 time champion and title holder to win the title. The most dominant player EVER at WTF. So there is no doubt he did it the hardest possible way. And he did it with panache without losing a match and without losing a set in the final. Class.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

First of all, Delpo had better indoor results than Murray (won Basel and Vienna), so it's highly debatable whether at WTF, Murray was a tougher opponent than Delpo (on form). That theory is pretty much invalidated by the fact Fed lost his match vs Delpo (second match he lost to him indoor over a short time) but not vs Murray. Djoko won his matches vs both Murray and Delpo, and there is no indication it would have mattered 1 bit in what order he played them. If Fed can beat opponents only in a certain order, he has a problem for sure. Djoko, on top of having the tougher RR group, had to beat the 6 time champion and title holder to win the title. The most dominant player EVER at WTF. So there is no doubt he did it the hardest possible way. And he did it with panache without losing a match and without losing a set in the final. Class.

Djokovic deserved that title, no doubt. I'm not questioning it. He was far and away the best player at WTF 2012 and would have won it regardless of how his draw was. But just because he would've won it anyway doesn't mean his draw was tougher. It is debatable. Like I said, better face Murray in the roundrobins than in the semifinal. And don't give me that stuff about Del Potro being in great form. He lost to Ferrer. He was playing well but it doesn't take a genius to see Murray is the bigger threat.

[TheF1Bob]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Some draws are better than others. Djoko had the worse draw at WTF. He still didn't lose a match. Maybe there's a reason why he's #1 (other than draws).

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

You're not the brightest bulb in the room either. You said Federer would never make #1 if Djokovic, Nadal and Murray were the same age and then suggest that Federer making #1 at 31 was your point? That sounds incredibly... unclever... to put it mildly.

You still haven't understood MY point. That if Nadal, Djoko and Murray had been the same age as Fed, Fed may never have become #1 to begin with, given that Nadal was infinitely more precocious than him and he would have owned early 20s Fed big time and both Djoko and Murray would have challenged him way more than Rod or Blake on hard, so he would never have acquired the confidence and resume he has now in the first place.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

You still haven't understood MY point. That if Nadal, Djoko and Murray had been the same age as Fed, Fed may never have become #1 to begin with, given that Nadal was infinitely more precocious than him and he would have owned early 20s Fed big time and both Djoko and Murray would have challenged him way more than Rod or Blake on hard, so he would never have acquired the confidence and resume he has now in the first place.

Oh my God. You really think 25 year-old Federer couldn't have done what 31 year-old Federer did?

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Oh my God. You really think 25 year-old Federer couldn't have done what 31 year-old Federer did?

I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

I'm saying he would not have become the 31 year old Fed you know. He would not have had a chance to establish a crushing domination. He would never have been anything else than one top player among others. Can't you see the difference between his head to head vs Roddick, Davy, Blake and his head to head vs Nadal, Murray and Djoko? In one case: absolute domination, in the other case: win some, lose some.

That's because most of Federer's losses to Djokovic and Murray have come post-prime and he is still playing and competing on Hards (Djokovic and Murray best surface) and on Clay (Nadal's best surface). Don't you find it weird that Federer and Murray have never played on Clay (Murray's worst surface, where Federer is definitely much better) and Federer and Djokovic have only played once on Grass (Djokovic's worst surface and Federer's best)? And don't even get me started on the number of matches Federer and Nadal have played on Clay (Federer's worst surface and Nadal's best). All things considered, Federer's record is incredibly good against Djokovic AND Nadal (yes, Nadal too). He could've done better against Murray but he still won the all-important matches. Considering the match-up advantage Nadal has against Federer, him being 5 years younger, half their matches being on Clay, and Nadal being one of the 5 greatest players of all time, a 10-18 record is something to be proud of.

Pre-2008, Federer was 5-1 against Djokovic and 1-1 against Murray.

[veroniquem]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

That's because most of Federer's losses to Djokovic and Murray have come post-prime .

Don't think so. Nadal beat Fed for the first time at 17, Djoko at 20, Murray too and Fed was the #1, the others nowhere near their prime. If they had been the same age, it would have been worse since Fed's level in 2000-2002 was considerably worse than his 2004-2007 level. He would have had to change his game to adapt and who knows if he could have?

[Fiji]

Federer became #1 at 31.

If he was 25 now, he would be winning and dominating all the slams except for the FO.

It wasn't until Federer was almost 27 that he lost to Nadal at other slams besides the FO and to Djokovic at a slam.

At almost 32 he still hasn't lost to Murray at a slam. Might change this year but the Swiss is pushing 32...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

Don't think so. Nadal beat Fed for the first time at 17, Djoko at 20, Murray too and Fed was the #1, the others nowhere near their prime. If they had been the same age, it would have been worse since Fed's level in 2000-2002 was considerably worse than his 2004-2007 level. He would have had to change his game to adapt and who knows if he could have?

I didn't say anything about Nadal. Nadal could and can hurt Federer at any age when he was at any age. Murray beat Federer once in his prime. Even Djokovic beat him once in his prime. On the other hand, Olderer took peak/prime Djokovic out at the French Open, Wimbledon, and almost did at the US Open too. Not to mention the bagel beat-down at Cincinnati. Prime Federer would comfortably deal with Djokovic (with a few losses, of course). He can still beat Murray (who is possibly hitting his peak) at 31. You can't see it because you're biased. Federer would actually benefit from being the same age as the other 3. He'd be racking up Calendar Year Grand Slams at the ages of 28, 29, 30, 31 or be coming pretty darned close to.

[tennisaddict]

Originally Posted by Prisoner of Birth

Oh my God. You really think 25 year-old Federer couldn't have done what 31 year-old Federer did?

Her twisted logic is 31 year old Fed still became number 1 only because of the insurmountable confidence that the 25 year old Fed gained by playing a weak field. If Fed were to be in the same age group as the other 3, he would have never been a No 1 at 25 or 31.

Is there any Nobel price award for such logic ?