There no doubt Nole is the best ever in Australia now

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

To TheFifthSet,

I'm not saying Fed's draws were **** easy (except 2006), but when I compare to who Novak had to beat to earn his titles:

2008 - Fed #1 and Tsonga
2011 - Fed #2 and Murray #5
2012 - Murray #4 and Nadal #2
2013 - Ferrer #4 and Murray #3

Apart from Murray in 2011, Tsonga's the only one not seeded top 4 and in that final he kept his level up from the previous 08 matches.

Then I look at Fed's:

2004 - Hewitt #15, Nalby #8, Ferrero #3 and Safin
2006 - Davydenko #5, Kiefer and Baghdatis
2007 - Roddick #6 and Gonzalez #10
2010 - Tsonga #10 and Murray #5

I think it's pretty clear Novak has had the tougher run and still has 4 titles, which imo ranks him as the AO GOAT in the open era.

oh please, murray AO 2011 and ferrer AO 2013 were pushovers ...
in 2011, murray wasn't playing that well, struggled crazily vs ferrer and won in big part due to ferrer playing horrible breakers .. ended up playing a sh*t final, much worse than the AO 2010 one .. (should've been bagelled in the 2nd set, but looked like novak took pity and gave him 2 games instead )

ferrer in 2013 should've lost to almagro, who ended up mega-choking ...

you could've added stan for AO 2013 instead ..

2006 was haas, davydenko, baghdatis
2010 was davydenko, tsonga and murray

almost everyone in the list I mentioned for fed were clearly better than murray in AO 2011 and ferrer in AO 2013

also tsonga's level dropped off a bit in the 2008 final just like gonzo's did in AO 2007 ...

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

oh please, murray AO 2011 and ferrer AO 2013 were pushovers ...
in 2011, murray wasn't playing that well, struggled crazily vs ferrer and won in big part due to ferrer playing horrible breakers .. ended up playing a sh*t final, much worse than the AO 2010 one .. (should've been bagelled in the 2nd set, but looked like novak took pity and gave him 2 games instead )

ferrer in 2013 should've lost to almagro, who ended up mega-choking ...

you could've added stan for AO 2013 instead ..

2006 was haas, davydenko, baghdatis
2010 was davydenko, tsonga and murray

almost everyone in the list I mentioned for fed were clearly better than murray in AO 2011 and ferrer in AO 2013

also tsonga's level dropped off a bit in the 2008 final just like gonzo's did in AO 2007 ...

LOL as if 2006 Haas would've pushed Novak in any year he won the title. Same with Davydenko and Baghdatis. And let's not forget Kiefer was Fed's SF opponent in 2006

And yeah, I probably should've included Stan as well.

Fact still remains Novak is AO GOAT and he has had it MUCH harder than Fed on route to winning his titles.

He's also managed to win 3 in a row and is undefeated vs the big 4 since it went plexicushion.

Oh and let's not forget Fed's AO record vs top 4 opponents, which now stands at 1W (Ferrero) - 6L (Nadal x2, Novak x2, Murray + Safin)

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL as if 2006 Haas would've pushed Novak in any year he won the title. Same with Davydenko and Baghdatis. And let's not forget Kiefer was Fed's SF opponent in 2006

And yeah, I probably should've included Stan as well.

Fact still remains Novak is AO GOAT and he has had it MUCH harder than Fed on route to winning his titles.

He's also managed to win 3 in a row and is undefeated vs the big 4 since it went plexicushion.

well, davydenko, haas, baghdatis would've given some competition .... if stan could give him a massive scare, so could they ....

Novak didn't have it much harder at all ...if you include ferrer 2013 or murray 2011, who put up cr*p performances, that's your delusional view .....

and I'd take losing to a top 4 player - fed,nadal, murray over losing to roddick or tsonga ....

yeah, so what if kiefer was fed's SF opponent ? he atleast put in a more respectable performance than ferrer did in the AO 2013 SF or murray did in AO 2011 final

fed in his best years there : 2004,05,07, 10 would easily beat the 08/11 versions of himself that novak faced ... even in 2006, he was clearly better ...

I can see why someone could put Novak over fed @ the AO , but don't get delusional that novak had it that much harder ...

fed hasn't lost before the semis since 2004 ... djoker has lost twice in the QF stage

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh and let's not forget Fed's AO record vs top 4 opponents, which now stands at 1W (Ferrero) - 6L (Nadal x2, Novak x2, Murray + Safin)

its 3-6 and majority of the losses were after his peak ... your boy rafa won't even be fit enough to be playing tennis at a high level at that age

I suppose fed should've lost to tsonga this year rather than beat him to get to the semi ... that would have made him a better player since he wouldn't be 'spoiling' his record vs the top4 players at the AO further

he should've lost to tipsarevic in AO 2008, simon in AO 2011 as well, right

[Magnus]

Djokovic never won on Rebound Ace
Agassi only won on Rebound Ace

Federer has won on both surfaces.
Fed wins.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

its 3-6 and majority of the losses were after his peak ... your boy rafa won't even be fit enough to be playing tennis at a high level at that age

Is there a Crystal ball bargain sale? I may just bookmark this and bring it up in 4 years time when Rafa does play at a high level at age 31.

Oh and who are these imaginary other 2 top 4 wins against. I hope you're not counting Muzza 2010 and Arod 07. They were seeded 5 and 6 respectively.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Is there a Crystal ball bargain sale? I may just bookmark this and bring it up in 4 years time when Rafa does play at a high level at age 31.

oh, please do .......

Originally Posted by The_Order

Oh and who are these imaginary other 2 top 4 wins against. I hope you're not counting Muzza 2010 and Arod 07. They were seeded 5 and 6 respectively.

they were #4 ranked players in the world at that time.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

well, davydenko, haas, baghdatis would've given some competition .... if stan could give him a massive scare, so could they ....

Stan played a LOT better than they did.

Originally Posted by abmk

Novak didn't have it much harder at all ...if you include ferrer 2013 or murray 2011, who put up cr*p performances, that's your delusional view .....

LOL Ferrer's performance is not too disimilar to Roddick in 07. Fed and Novak were in the zone in those matches.

Originally Posted by abmk

and I'd take losing to a top 4 player - fed,nadal, murray over losing to roddick or tsonga ....

Take what you want, you are nitpicking Novak's 2 worst AOs since he reached top 4. So he had a bad couple of AO tournaments, oh well he beat Fed's arse twice without losing a set. Fed could only beat baby Novak at AO.

Those guys that Fed lost to have never beat Novak at AO.

Originally Posted by abmk

yeah, so what if kiefer was fed's SF opponent ? he atleast put in a more respectable performance than ferrer did in the AO 2013 SF or murray did in AO 2011 final

Wow he won a set. He was a joke semi finalist, ranked 21 for a reason and that reason is he has no weapons whatsoever to trouble the top 4 players in majors.

Originally Posted by abmk

fed in his best years there : 2004,05,07, 10 would easily beat the 08/11 versions of himself that novak faced ... even in 2006, he was clearly better ...

I can see why someone could put Novak over fed @ the AO , but don't get delusional that novak had it that much harder ...

fed hasn't lost before the semis since 2004 ... djoker has lost twice in the QF stage

Fed hasn't beaten Nadal or Novak since plexi. 2006 Fed would not beat 2008 or 2011 Novak so it doesn't really matter anyway.

Truth >> Novak beaten MUCH tougher opponents on route to winning his titles. Just like nadal has had to beat tougher opponents to win his majors.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

oh, please do .......

No prob.

Originally Posted by abmk

they were #4 ranked players in the world at that time.

They were not seeded 4. That means they weren't ranked 4 for the tournament, when are you going to understand that?

His record against top 4 is 1W 6L

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Stan played a LOT better than they did.

quite a bit better than haas/baghdatis, but davydenko's performance wasn't far off ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

LOL Ferrer's performance is not too disimilar to Roddick in 07. Fed and Novak were in the zone in those matches.

eh,no , not even close ... ferrer wasn't anywhere close to good form, having struggled vs almagro and almagro should have put him away in straights ;

roddick OTOH was , he had even taken fed to the brink at the YEC 2 months or so ago ...

fed hit 45 winners to 12 UEs vs roddick, roddick was 11 winners to 18 UEs
djok hit 30 winners to 16 UEs vs ferrer, ferrer was 11 winners to 32 UEs

no denying that djok was in the zone, but ferrer was wayyyyy worse than roddick

Originally Posted by The_Order

Take what you want, you are nitpicking Novak's 2 worst AOs since he reached top 4. So he had a bad couple of AO tournaments, oh well he beat Fed's arse twice without losing a set. Fed could only beat baby Novak at AO.

Those guys that Fed lost to have never beat Novak at AO.

well, then AO 2011 and AO 2008 were fed's worst AOs ; you are also 'nitpicking' by pointing out his losses to a peaking Novak there ...

fed would have beaten novak at 2009/2010 AO had they faced off and you know it ...

Originally Posted by The_Order

Wow he won a set. He was a joke semi finalist, ranked 21 for a reason and that reason is he has no weapons whatsoever to trouble the top 4 players in majors.

whatever, but the performance he put was atleast better than what ferrer or murray put up on those occasions; anyways it doesn't matter that much as fed faced better players in the previous rounds- davydenko, haas & then later in the final - baghdatis

Originally Posted by The_Order

Fed hasn't beaten Nadal or Novak since plexi. 2006 Fed would not beat 2008 or 2011 Novak so it doesn't really matter anyway.

Truth >> Novak beaten MUCH tougher opponents on route to winning his titles. Just like nadal has had to beat tougher opponents to win his majors.

2006 fed may not have beaten 2008/2011 novak but 2004/2005,2007,2010 fed definitely could ....

truth is the difficulty level was around the same, only fed has been a bit more consistent ....

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

They were not seeded 4. That means they weren't ranked 4 for the tournament, when are you going to understand that?

His record against top 4 is 1W 6L

ranking is what matters when you talk about 'calibre' ...

the seedings are drawn a bit before the AO, so players can still get points in tournaments before that ... that's what happened ...

again, I'll repeat :

I suppose fed should've lost to tsonga this year rather than beat him to get to the semi ... that would have made him a better player since he wouldn't be 'spoiling' his record vs the top4 players at the AO further

he should've lost to tipsarevic in AO 2008, simon in AO 2011 as well, right

that would've made him better in your opinion ?

[Federer20042006]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Ah yes, lets not forget Mystic Safin. He played the highest possible level of tennis in the history of the sport because that is the only possible way Roger could lose.

No version of any player could ever had a chance against Safin in that semi and this is evidenced by the fact that he beat peak Roger.

Back to reality, 2011 Novak would've beat him in 4 sets.

Just like the result at 2008 Wimbledon. Oh, wait.

Yeah, yeah...it was on grass. Which player do you think was more bothered by the fact that it was on grass, though?

I say it was simply a bad matchup for Djokovic if Safin's head was in it.

And does 2011 Djokovic really differ that much from 2012 and (so far) 2013 Djokovic? I see the same player. The biggest difference in results was because of the simple fact that 2011 Djokovic was able to sneak out with wins he never should have (Murray at Rome, Federer at US Open).

[kalyan4fedever]

federer is the true one , but the slow courts made him vulnerable and the pushers like djoker are considered unbeatable

[cc0509]

Why would Djokovic be the best player at the AO now? He is tied with Federer and Agassi with four titles. If Djokovic wins another title then we can consider him the best there.

[Phoenix1983]

Originally Posted by 90's Clay

Has taken Fed to the woodshed twice, taken Murray countless times, taken Nadal last year.

While Andre has an argument as well, Andre's last two AO titles came vs. HORRIBLE fields in 2001-2003

I agree, Djokovic is the AO GOAT for sure. 4 wins including 3 in succession.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

ranking is what matters when you talk about 'calibre' ...

the seedings are drawn a bit before the AO, so players can still get points in tournaments before that ... that's what happened ...

And the seeds determine the draw, so try again.

Originally Posted by abmk

again, I'll repeat :

I suppose fed should've lost to tsonga this year rather than beat him to get to the semi ... that would have made him a better player since he wouldn't be 'spoiling' his record vs the top4 players at the AO further

he should've lost to tipsarevic in AO 2008, simon in AO 2011 as well, right

that would've made him better in your opinion ?

You suppose wrong. What should've happened is Fed should've won more matches against the top 4 at AO instead of losing them.

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by abmk

quite a bit better than haas/baghdatis, but davydenko's performance wasn't far off ...

But the rest of 06 AO was **** easy. Novak had to beat Berdych and Murray as well.

Fed had a tough qtr against Davy but then had total pushovers in the semi and final. Haas 4th round wasn't because Haas was playing well he was getting killed until Fed lost concentration and Haas got back into the match, but once it got down to fifth set Fed thumped him again.

Originally Posted by abmk

eh,no , not even close ... ferrer wasn't anywhere close to good form, having struggled vs almagro and almagro should have put him away in straights ;

roddick OTOH was , he had even taken fed to the brink at the YEC 2 months or so ago ...

fed hit 45 winners to 12 UEs vs roddick, roddick was 11 winners to 18 UEs
djok hit 30 winners to 16 UEs vs ferrer, ferrer was 11 winners to 32 UEs

no denying that djok was in the zone, but ferrer was wayyyyy worse than roddick

This is an incredibly weak argument on your behalf yet again. Novak and Federer play completely different brand of tennis. Novak is the greatest defender ever along with Nadal. When a player like that is in the zone there is no way Ferrer would do anything to win rallies. Ferrer's shots just kept coming back like a brick wall and this caused him to make more errors.

Fed v Roddick is a completely different match up with much shorter points. Federer plays attacking style and therefore he won more rally's by hitting winners.

I thought you would at least have known that instead of googling a stat sheet...

Oh and Ferrer is a known pusher so t have equal W with Roddick just goes to show how aweful Roddick played when his W stats are equal to a guy like Ferrer and Ferrer was playing the better defender. Factor in that 4 of Roddick's winners were aces and that leaves him with 7 winners in ground play

Originally Posted by abmk

well, then AO 2011 and AO 2008 were fed's worst AOs ; you are also 'nitpicking' by pointing out his losses to a peaking Novak there ...

fed would have beaten novak at 2009/2010 AO had they faced off and you know it ...

Didn't you say Federer played better in 2011 AO than 2013? Didn't you create a massive post about it from another googled stat sheet? Now all of a sudden 2011 was worse than 2013? You keep changing stations to suit yourself and it only makes you look weaker and weaker in terms of your tennis knowledge which was very small to begin with.

As for Fed beating Novak in 09, it wouldn't matter because he lost anyway. If Fed reached Novak in 2012 and 2013 he would've lost to him and you know it.

Face it Novak is without a doubt the AO GOAT. He is undefeated against top 4 since he himself became a top 4 player. Now you can argue all you want that his record against top 4 wouldn't be as good if he didn't lose in qtrs in 09 and 10 all you want, the fact is he is:

6W 0L vs top 4 opponents and adding an extra 2 losses to that doesn't really prove he can't beat top 4 opponents at AO. Fed otoh has had 7 opportunities and only won 1 of them. When he was in his peak in 2005 he had a great chance to prove himself there, but he blew it, trying a tweener on match point. The truth is, as soon as a top 4 player plays to their ranking against Fed at AO, they beat him.

Originally Posted by abmk

whatever, but the performance he put was atleast better than what ferrer or murray put up on those occasions; anyways it doesn't matter that much as fed faced better players in the previous rounds- davydenko, haas & then later in the final - baghdatis

What difference does it make? Fed smashed Kiefer in the remaining sets and in the end both got through VERY comfortably and were under no threat of losing whatsoever.

As for Fed facing better players in other rounds, you really shouldn't be mentioning Haas. In that form no way would he pull 2 sets against Novak in the form he was in when he won the AO titles. Fed was pretty poor by his standards in 2006 and the **** weak draw saved him from another defeat down under.

If Novak had that draw he would only potentially lose 1 set to Davydenko.

Originally Posted by abmk

2006 fed may not have beaten 2008/2011 novak but 2004/2005,2007,2010 fed definitely could ....

truth is the difficulty level was around the same, only fed has been a bit more consistent ....

Absolutely not in any way, shape or form except for ******* logic which you specialise in.

For one, Novak had to beat Nadal to win 2012 AO, any version of Fed at AO would've lost to Nadal in 2012 AO form, especially on plexicushion.

And he beat Federer to win 2 of his other AO titles.

Fed hasn't beaten any top 4 except JC Ferrero.

Anyone with any brain cells would agree that Novak had it much tougher and despite that still has won it 4 times and won 3 in a row. He is AO GOAT. Not Federer.

[Russeljones]

There's no doubt AO is the backwater of the Grand Slams and the surface is contributing to the most boring matches in world tennis.

[stringertom]

Originally Posted by Russeljones

There's no doubt AO is the backwater of the Grand Slams and the surface is contributing to the most boring matches in world tennis.

I agree, RJ, but at least we got two classics this year despite the sloooowness...Stan/Djok and Rogi/Willy saved the fortnight...wish they had been on the second weekend!

Go back to grass or find some faster alternative. The monotony is killing the game.

[TMF]

How quickly people have forgotten. Federer is the only player to win the AO without dropping a set since the establishment of the ATP.

And about the rubbish competition argument, one can argue Nole wouldn't have beaten Safin in 2005, and he would be sitting on 3 AO. If 2005 Federer had Murray instead of Safin, he would have 5 AO by now.