Let's disspel the myth that Federer thrived against a "weak field"

[The_Order]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

It's not Fed's fault that Nadal and/or Djokovic weren't standing on the other side of the net for the majority of his Major titles.

Teymuraz Gabashvili (RUS) 93
Denis Istomin (UZB) 39
Gilles Simon (FRA) 42
Feliciano Lopez (ESP) 25
Fernando Verdasco (ESP) 8
Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 14
Novak Djokovic (SRB) 3

There's Rafa's draw for the 2010 US Open. Top to bottom, that draw doesn't scream: Quality. Djoker is the only opponent of note, and when they played, Novak had one Major and it was his first Major final since 2008.

But still tougher than Fed's draws that I mentioned. Keep trying.

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Kei Nishikori (JPN) 189
Robin Haase (NED) 151
Philipp Petzschner (GER) 41
Paul-Henri Mathieu (FRA) 66
Robin Soderling (SWE) 6
Andy Murray (GBR) 4
Tomas Berdych (CZE) 13

There's Rafa's draw for Wimby 2010. But I forgot, he faced Murray (#4), which automatically makes this a quality win.

OMG I refuse to believe you are that dumb! I just said WIM and RG 2010 were his EASY slam wins. In what universe can you possibly translate that to me saying it was a quality win? Maybe you should READ what you quote and comment on and if you did read it, then LEARN to READ properly.

Originally Posted by BigServer1

Andreas Beck (GER) 122
Ernests Gulbis (LAT) 48
Nicolas Kiefer (GER) 32
Mikhail Youzhny (RUS) 17
Andy Murray (GBR) 11
Rainer Schuettler (GER) 94
Roger Federer (SUI) 1

Rafa's 2008 Wimby. Outside of Federer...Who did he beat? Murray at that time hadn't even made his first Major final...

Yeah, you're right, I mean outside of the 5 time defending champion who did he beat? lol. Just stop you are making yourself look incredibly stupid.

Originally Posted by BigServer1

I don't think you can look at the final opponent and discern whether or not a win is "quality". Sure, facing a Major winner in a final makes it harder, but Roger faced plenty of those in his wins...Djokovic, Nadal, Agassi, Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, etc.

No, not a major winner that's not my argument. When did Fed beat those "major" winners? When they weren't ranked in the top 2 apart from a couple here and there.

Originally Posted by BigServer1

I think winning a tournament where you beat multiple top 10 players is just as impressive as a tournament where you play guys ranked much lower, but then beat one guy who is great. It's just a difference of opinion, I guess.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I can see your point but I think the bench mark should not be top 10. IMO it should be top 3 because they are usually the slam contenders and they are for a reason. My point is if you can beat the best possible opponent that you could've faced, then it MUST be considered as a tough draw, but if you are beating guys that you are ranked 4-5+ places higher than, then it's not as impressive because it's easier.

BTW I am NOT trying to say that beating multiple top 10 opponents is EASY that anybody could do, it certainly is very impressive BUT it is still EASIER than beating the #1 or #2 ranked player in the world.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by The_Order

But still tougher than Fed's draws that I mentioned. Keep trying.

OMG I refuse to believe you are that dumb! I just said WIM and RG 2010 were his EASY slam wins. In what universe can you possibly translate that to me saying it was a quality win? Maybe you should READ what you quote and comment on and if you did read it, then LEARN to READ properly.

Yeah, you're right, I mean outside of the 5 time defending champion who did he beat? lol. Just stop you are making yourself look incredibly stupid.

No, not a major winner that's not my argument. When did Fed beat those "major" winners? When they weren't ranked in the top 2 apart from a couple here and there.

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I can see your point but I think the bench mark should not be top 10. IMO it should be top 3 because they are usually the slam contenders and they are for a reason. My point is if you can beat the best possible opponent that you could've faced, then it MUST be considered as a tough draw, but if you are beating guys that you are ranked 4-5+ places higher than, then it's not as impressive because it's easier.

BTW I am NOT trying to say that beating multiple top 10 opponents is EASY that anybody could do, it certainly is very impressive BUT it is still EASIER than beating the #1 or #2 ranked player in the world.

It's clear you and I just disagree. BTW, at Wimby 2010, Nadal played 2 5 set matches in early rounds. It was easy in terms of ranked opponents (even though you mentioned that going through a top 4 player makes a draw "hard", and he played #4 Murray in the semis, but I digress), but he was tested early.

By the rubric you've created, of course Nadal and Djoker have had it harder than Fed. If the only thing that matters is beating a top 3-4 player, then sure. I couldn't disagree more with the premise since it A) automatically dismisses anyone ranked 5 or below and B) doesn't allow for anyone to say "that player got hot and was playing at an other worldly level". I think both of those things can matter greatly when assessing the strength of a draw or Major win.

My issue with this is pretty simple: There is a growing sect of people on TTW that think that the only players that matter are the top 4. I disagree. I think overall strength of an era (or a draw, in this case), means more than just the top 3-4 guys. That's the basis for my opinion that running the table on 15, 6, 7, 9 is as impressive as 25, 8, 14, 3. In my opinion it is, in yours it's not.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

It's clear you and I just disagree. BTW, at Wimby 2010, Nadal played 2 5 set matches in early rounds. It was easy in terms of ranked opponents (even though you mentioned that going through a top 4 player makes a draw "hard", and he played #4 Murray in the semis, but I digress), but he was tested early.

By the rubric you've created, of course Nadal and Djoker have had it harder than Fed. If the only thing that matters is beating a top 3-4 player, then sure.

My issue with this is pretty simple: There is a growing sect of people on TTW that think that the only players that matter are the top 4. I disagree. I think overall strength of an era (or a draw, in this case), means more than just the top 3-4 guys. That's the basis for my opinion that running the table on 15, 6, 7, 9 is as impressive as 25, 8, 14, 3. In my opinion it is, in yours it's not.

Your arguments go in line with the arguments of who had tougher competition between Evert, Navratilova, Court, and Graf. Nearly everyone says Graf had the easiest competition because Seles was stabbed. However the field she faced was overall much deeper than the ones those other 3 faced. However people say Martina had Chris, Margaret had Billie Jean, Chris had Billie Jean, Evonne, then Martina, and so on. The top 20 and even top 30 was way stronger in Graf's era though, but people value the main rival(s) more.

[Crisstti]

Originally Posted by The_Order

Well you're entitled to your opinion and I can see your point but I think the bench mark should not be top 10. IMO it should be top 3 because they are usually the slam contenders and they are for a reason. My point is if you can beat the best possible opponent that you could've faced, then it MUST be considered as a tough draw, but if you are beating guys that you are ranked 4-5+ places higher than, then it's not as impressive because it's easier.

BTW I am NOT trying to say that beating multiple top 10 opponents is EASY that anybody could do, it certainly is very impressive BUT it is still EASIER than beating the #1 or #2 ranked player in the world.

There's the quality of those 1 or 2 ranked players as well.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

Your arguments go in line with the arguments of who had tougher competition between Evert, Navratilova, Court, and Graf. Nearly everyone says Graf had the easiest competition because Seles was stabbed. However the field she faced was overall much deeper than the ones those other 3 faced. However people say Martina had Chris, Margaret had Billie Jean, Chris had Billie Jean, Evonne, then Martina, and so on. The top 20 and even top 30 was way stronger in Graf's era though, but people value the main rival(s) more.

I agree that people value the main rivals more. I understand where people are coming from, especially if all 3/4 guys were in primes at the same time.

I just don't see it in today's game. Fed is going downhill, Murray has never entirely gotten it together on the big stages, and then you've obviously got Rafa and Djoker who are both playing very well. After that, there's not much going on.

While many writers, pundits and players (former and current) feel this is a golden era, I disagree. It's not out of Fed worship, tardness, or anything else, it's just that I think it should be about more than the top 3 guys. Tennis would be ultimately more interesting, imo, if it were about more than just the top 3 (really the top 2) players.

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

I have no idea what you are talking about or what exactly is your beef...

You play the hand you're dealt with. Not the hand you, or the fans wish to have". Simple English?

The PAST canNOT be changed. Coulda, woulda, shoulda canNOT and will NEVER change the past. Simple?

You look at a past accomplishment, and say "throw Rafa or Djoker in the mix" (your quote here), Fed would NOT have it"? You just BELITTLE Fed. That's armchair quaterbacking PAST results to your sick fantasy.

How about "throw in the mix Laver, Lendl, Borg, Boris, Stefan, Sampras against Rafa" for each of his GS titles? He would have been CREAMED! And his # would be... 0 title. I have too much respect for Rafa to do it though. Just old, silly me.

Enjoy your 'what-if' and belittle Fed. Have your laugh. Be warned though that someone else is also applying the same 'what-if and throw in the mix' against Rafa or Djoker or your favorite player.

Many of you on this thread canNOT understand how humiliating, or condescending your message look when you "throw in the mix and this player now becomes NOBODY".
English simple to understand?

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by BigServer1

I agree that people value the main rivals more. I understand where people are coming from, especially if all 3/4 guys were in primes at the same time.

I just don't see it in today's game. Fed is going downhill, Murray has never entirely gotten it together on the big stages, and then you've obviously got Rafa and Djoker who are both playing very well. After that, there's not much going on.

While many writers, pundits and players (former and current) feel this is a golden era, I disagree. It's not out of Fed worship, tardness, or anything else, it's just that I think it should be about more than the top 3 guys. Tennis would be ultimately more interesting, imo, if it were about more than just the top 3 (really the top 2) players.

I dont think this is a golden era. I just dont think Federer's was either. None of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had to experience a golden era by any stretch. The thing that makes me is not the Federer fans who argue that todays competition isnt that much stronger, which to some extent is true, but that they also thrash the Sampras era, the McEnroe era, the Laver era, any era past as well. They give the impression they actually think (I lol at the very thought of this) that the Federer era was the strongest competition ever, with Roddick and Hewitt as his main rivals, and that frankly is laughable. I am a Nadal fan but I dont try to argue something similarily stupid, like saying he had the toughest clay competition ever, or that his road to winning Wimbledon with the court conditions and grass field today is the toughest ever. If I took the mentality of a typical TW **** I probably would argue such stupid things though.

[BigServer1]

Originally Posted by NadalAgassi

I dont think this is a golden era. I just dont think Federer's was either. None of Federer, Nadal, or Djokovic have had to experience a golden era by any stretch. The thing that makes me is not the Federer fans who argue that todays competition isnt that much stronger, which to some extent is true, but that they also thrash the Sampras era, the McEnroe era, the Laver era, any era past as well. They give the impression they actually think (I lol at the very thought of this) that the Federer era was the strongest competition ever, with Roddick and Hewitt as his main rivals, and that frankly is laughable. I am a Nadal fan but I dont try to argue something similarily stupid, like saying he had the toughest clay competition ever, or that his road to winning Wimbledon with the court conditions and grass field today is the toughest ever. If I took the mentality of a typical TW **** I probably would argue such stupid things though.

I agree with you on this 100%. I think 04-07 and 08-present are of equitable strength, given the strength at the top today versus the stronger top 30 ish from 04-07. I think since the late 90s, tennis has been weaker in general, and we're far from a golden age.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by VPhuc tennis fan

You play the hand you're dealt with. Not the hand you, or the fans wish to have". Simple English?

The PAST canNOT be changed. Coulda, woulda, shoulda canNOT and will NEVER change the past. Simple?

You look at a past accomplishment, and say "throw Rafa or Djoker in the mix" (your quote here), Fed would NOT have it"? You just BELITTLE Fed. That's armchair quaterbacking PAST results to your sick fantasy.

How about "throw in the mix Laver, Lendl, Borg, Boris, Stefan, Sampras against Rafa" for each of his GS titles? He would have been CREAMED! And his # would be... 0 title. I have too much respect for Rafa to do it though. Just old, silly me.

Enjoy your 'what-if' and belittle Fed. Have your laugh. Be warned though that someone else is also applying the same 'what-if and throw in the mix' against Rafa or Djoker or your favorite player.

Many of you on this thread canNOT understand how humiliating, or condescending your
message look when you "throw in the mix and this player now becomes NOBODY".
English simple to understand?

Both nadal and federer played at their prime in 2008 Wimbledon in the greatest match of all time in Feds house of grass.

Nadal won.

It's the equivalent of fed beating nadal at Roland garros in his prime.

Game over.

Nadal is a better grass and hard court player than fed is a clay court player.

[abmk]

Originally Posted by The_Order

LMFAO Gonzo and Baggy were playing at their highest level in those AO's... until they reached the final and nerves affected their play.

Seriously look at how baggy capitulated when serving for the second set in that final, he got slaughtered after that and Gonzo's level dropped considerably after losing the first set TB. I think it's you who didn't watch.

And that other crap about #15, #6, #7 and #9 is nowhere, and I repeat NOWHERE near as tough as facing a guy ranked #3.

There is a reason Djoker was ranked #3 for years and years. He was a major winner (AO 08 ) and multpile slam finalist and ahead of the rest of the pack.

Also missed ANOTHER slam Fed has won without having to beat a top 4 opponent. WIM 03. Now that's 6 majors.

QUALITY OVER QUANTITY my friend, not only that, but Rafa has had to beat the #1 or #2 player to win 05, 06, 07, 08, 12 RG, 08 WIM, 09 AO.

That's 7/11 slams beating one of the top 2. What's Fed's count? How many times did he BEAT the #1 or #2 ranked player to win a major? 04, 05, 06, 07 WIM that's it. So 4/16 for Fed lol that's only 25% where he's managed to beat the #1 or #2 ranked player, yet Rafa has done it in 7/11 meaning he has won 64% of his slams against the #1 or #2 ranked player.

Rafa's also done it outside of his favorite slam at AO and WIM (in fact almost twice with the 5 set losses at WIM07 and AO12) whereas Fed has NEVER EVER beaten a #1 or #2 ranked player to win a major outside of Wimbledon. Once again QUALITY OVER QUANTITY.

what a load of cr*p..

del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

etc etc

Quality of play over reputations ........


lol, how could federer beat the #1, #2 players that consistently, when he was the #1 player at his prime and the no #2 (nadal ) player was AWOL at the final stages of the HC slams ? ( he did beat nadal at wimbledon )

baggy and gonzo played MUCH better than soderling in FO 2010 final or berdych in wim 2010 final

2004 AO - federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in a row. Are you gonna cry because he didn't beat #1, roddick ? LOL !

2004 USO - he beat agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time , roddick was eliminated in the QF by big hitting JJ

2005 USO - he beat nalbandian, agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time, the #2 player nadal of course was eliminated by blake

2007 USO - he beat roddick, davydenko and djoker in a row, the best HC players at that time ...

2008 USO - he beat djoker and murray, the best HC players at that time ...

etc etc ...

Should I go on ?

nadal is far far more luckier that the surfaces have been slowed down, otherwise he'd have at max have 2 slams outside of clay ...

[DRII]

Originally Posted by abmk

what a load of cr*p..

del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

etc etc

Quality of play over reputations ........


lol, how could federer beat the #1, #2 players that consistently, when he was the #1 player at his prime and the no #2 (nadal ) player was AWOL at the final stages of the HC slams ? ( he did beat nadal at wimbledon )

baggy and gonzo played MUCH better than soderling in FO 2010 final or berdych in wim 2010 final

2004 AO - federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in a row. Are you gonna cry because he didn't beat #1, roddick ? LOL !

2004 USO - he beat agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time , roddick was eliminated in the QF by big hitting JJ

2005 USO - he beat nalbandian, agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time, the #2 player nadal of course was eliminated by blake

2007 USO - he beat roddick, davydenko and djoker in a row, the best HC players at that time ...

2008 USO - he beat djoker and murray, the best HC players at that time ...

etc etc ...

Should I go on ?

nadal is far far more luckier that the surfaces have been slowed down, otherwise he'd have at max have 2 slams outside of clay ...

Completely ridiculous post...

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by abmk

what a load of cr*p..

del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

etc etc

Quality of play over reputations ........


lol, how could federer beat the #1, #2 players that consistently, when he was the #1 player at his prime and the no #2 (nadal ) player was AWOL at the final stages of the HC slams ? ( he did beat nadal at wimbledon )

baggy and gonzo played MUCH better than soderling in FO 2010 final or berdych in wim 2010 final

2004 AO - federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in a row. Are you gonna cry because he didn't beat #1, roddick ? LOL !

2004 USO - he beat agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time , roddick was eliminated in the QF by big hitting JJ

2005 USO - he beat nalbandian, agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time, the #2 player nadal of course was eliminated by blake

2007 USO - he beat roddick, davydenko and djoker in a row, the best HC players at that time ...

2008 USO - he beat djoker and murray, the best HC players at that time ...

etc etc ...

Should I go on ?

nadal is far far more luckier that the surfaces have been slowed down, otherwise he'd have at max have 2 slams outside of clay ...

This is silly.

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by DRII

Completely ridiculous post...

Why, because he does not agree with you? He's correct by saying the finalists of Federer's slams were the best at that time, if not they could not have reached the final. Just like Rafa was the best at the 2010 USO or Federer was the best at the 2009 RG. Both beat the second best player of the tournament. Not the 2nd ranked, but the second best at that particular tournament, the one who rose to the challenge of reaching a Grand Slam final. Not Rafa's nor Roger's fault the finalist was not who you wanted to see. Case in point, both the slams I mentioned had no #1 or #2 finalists. The champions were the #1 and #2. In 2009, #2 Federer beat Soderling, who had just beaten #1 Nadal. In 2010, #1 Nadal beat Djokovic, who had just beaten #2 Federer. Does this diminish their slams? Of course not.

[NadalAgassi]

Originally Posted by abmk

what a load of cr*p..

del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

As usual you grossly exagerrated the truth and think speaking in hysteria strengthens your argument when it doesnt. Del Potro at the 2009 French was not that great. He was great for him considering he isnt a great clay courter to begin with, probably as well as he will ever play on clay. He struggled vs clay mug Tsonga, and his draw to the semis was a cakewalk. He then wore himself out and lost to a pushing and tenative Federer who was playing mediocre until playing a great final at that years French. Djokovic has never lost to Del Potro, and I highly doubt he would lose to the 2009 French Open version of Del Potro at either the 2012 French or 2010 U.S Open either. The Del Potro of the 2009 French probably wouldnt have even won a set vs Nadal at this years French, no chance in hell he goes on an 8 game run at one point or goes to a almost a 4th set tiebreak, so already the idea he was way better than Djokovic at this years French is clearly false.

Roddick played great at Wimbledon 2009 but still nearly went out to an old and injured Hewitt. He wasnt that much better, if at all, than Djokovic at the 2 slams you refer to. Djokovic wasnt playing that badly at those 2 slams, if he were he wouldnt have even been in the final and been competitive with a red hot Nadal.

[The Dark Knight]

Originally Posted by abmk

what a load of cr*p..

del potro FO 2009 >>>>>>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

roddick wimbledon 2009 >>>>>>>>> djoker USO 2010 , djoker FO 2012

etc etc

Quality of play over reputations ........


lol, how could federer beat the #1, #2 players that consistently, when he was the #1 player at his prime and the no #2 (nadal ) player was AWOL at the final stages of the HC slams ? ( he did beat nadal at wimbledon )

baggy and gonzo played MUCH better than soderling in FO 2010 final or berdych in wim 2010 final

2004 AO - federer beat hewitt, nalbandian, ferrero and safin in a row. Are you gonna cry because he didn't beat #1, roddick ? LOL !

2004 USO - he beat agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time , roddick was eliminated in the QF by big hitting JJ

2005 USO - he beat nalbandian, agassi and hewitt, the best HC players at that time, the #2 player nadal of course was eliminated by blake

2007 USO - he beat roddick, davydenko and djoker in a row, the best HC players at that time ...

2008 USO - he beat djoker and murray, the best HC players at that time ...

etc etc ...

Should I go on ?

nadal is far far more luckier that the surfaces have been slowed down, otherwise he'd have at max have 2 slams outside of clay ...

Actually I misread the post....it is ridiculous.

Nadal just keeps beating Fed at every stage in his career .

Can we at least agree that the competition became tougher once Nadals game evolved to all surface play? Clearly it got tougher because Nadal kept beating him In slams.

Now add to that Joker......the competition is now even tougher.

Joker + Nadal + Federer + Murray > just Federer

That's almost half of the entire top 10!!

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Both nadal and federer played at their prime in 2008 Wimbledon in the greatest match of all time in Feds house of grass.
Nadal is a better grass and hard court player than fed is a clay court player.

Still not reading my post? A pointer: start with the 2 first paragraphs (post #1206). That's my beef against your armchair quarterbacking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Federer#Records. Section "Finals: 23 (16 titles, 7 runners-up)". Make the count of Fed wins WITHOUT Rafa and Djoker. How many? Hint: 13. 13 times when your beloved Rafa and Djoker were NOT in these finals.

Where were they? 13 times that Rafa or Djoker got BOOTED OUT BEFORE the finals. They coulda, shoulda, woulda...don't you think? Yeah, I know, let throw them in the mix...Well, they got THROWN OUT 13 TIMES BEFORE they even had a sniff of Fed. Hint for keyword: BEFORE.

Can Wikipedia be wrong on the count? Ohh, just the old, silly, senile me, right?

[TopFH]

Originally Posted by The Dark Knight

Joker + Nadal + Federer + Murray > just Federer

That's almost half of the entire top 10!!

Yeah, super tough...Especially because Murray has never beaten Federer at a slam and Federer can't play himself. F*ck logic!

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Originally Posted by TopFH

Both beat the second best player of the tournament. Not the 2nd ranked, but the second best at that particular tournament, the one who rose to the challenge of reaching a Grand Slam final. Not Rafa's nor Roger's fault the finalist was not who you wanted to see. Does this diminish their slams? Of course not.

Top FH,
I kept the part of your quote here. It illustrates perfectly what I tried to tell to TKD and DRII, and many others. It just seems it couldn't get through.
Their counter-agument: "silly, ridiculous, poetry(!)". Humm...

Fed played these finals and WON. Regardless of the opponent identity.

Their sick fantasy wants to pitch Rafa and Djoker against Fed in every SINGLE of these 16 GS titles. Well, it didn't, all right. Deal with it. Stop "throw them in the mix and Fed would lose". Apparently, TDK is the ONLY one who has a time machine to go back in time. Can I buy a ticket?

[VPhuc tennis fan]

Apparently, you do NOT like my own "throw them in the mix", don't you?

My post #1206. My what-if "How about "throw in the mix Laver, Lendl, Borg, Boris, Stefan, Sampras against Rafa" for each of his GS titles? He would have been CREAMED! And his # would be... 0 title."

What happened? Too tough an opposition now.

Fed beat up a bunch of nobody players. So he's himself a lucky weak player. Rafa beat Fed easily, and because of that such weak opponent (Fed), Rafa is NOW the GREATEST, the STRONGEST, the ALL-TIME...

Don't you have to beat a strong opponent first? In your opinion, Fed is just a lucky, weak, nobody, pretender, remember?

Don't get caught pants down in your own convoluted logic. My 2 cents.

[Sabratha]

If Del Potro played at his 2009 US Open level at every slam, he'd be No. 1 now instead of Djokovic.