Djokovic has a pretty cake draw...

[Prisoner of Birth]

Originally Posted by tennisaddict

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 ?

That's like saying Nadal would be a 0-time Slam Champion had he faced Rosol in the 2nd Round of the 2005 French Open

[Beryl]

Someone always has to have a tougher draw, but it doesn't always turn out the way many would have thought. For example, Murray has been getting tough draws in the last couple of years that have opened up due to injuries and upsets.

This AO, on paper, Djokovic had an easier draw than Federer, but looking at how players have played so far, it's actually quite even. PHM is still a good player and Stepanek played very well, better than expected. In the other half, Paire and Davydenko hardly showed up. Djokovic will also have a tougher QF (do you think Roger wants to play Berdych?). I'd still say Roger has the tougher draw overall, but I'd say neither is particularly hard or easy.

[joeri888]

Murray Will probably play chardy or seppi in the qf. Thats pretty weak too.

[joeri888]

If monfils and chardy win their next match, murray Will not play someone inside top 50 before qf and nobody inside top 35 before semis.

[norbac]

Murray gets the surprise quarterfinalist at the AO for the third straight year.

[coloskier]

Originally Posted by Warmaster

It doesn't work like that, 1 and 2 are supposed to get equal draws.

It wasn't that way when I was playing tournaments in juniors, wasn't like that when I played the Satellite tour, wasn't like that even when I play tournaments now in my 50's. The 1st seed is always supposed to get the best draw. Of course, there are always head to head problems. For example, and 100th ranked player might be hell for a top player on grass.

[Calor1]

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

[Calor1]

Just enjoy living in a generation with so many great players. Who cares who would have been the best IF Fed had been 5 years younger. (see previous post ) We'll never know. Only thing that's certain is that there are some pretty damn good players around at the moment. So back to my opening statement: just enjoy it instead of *****ing about it.

[smoledman]

It's a disgrace and an outrage! I say we need an investigation into this.

[mandy01]

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...

only this year. Before that, he's been beating them all in a line to win. Truth hurts. I know.

[abmk]

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?

yeah, that's just you being clueless, that's what they said when hewitt, nalbandian, agassi , henman owned him before 2004 ..... since then he absolutely crushed them ...

face it, peak federer would be heads and shoulders above all of them except nadal on clay ....

and if they were of the same age, fed-nadal would've played more matches outside of clay and federer would've more of those, gaining more confidence rather than losing confidence because he happened to go consistently deep in CC tourneys whereas rafa was getting blasted off court by the likes of blake, youzhny etc in HC tournaments ...

[mandy01]

Originally Posted by veroniquem

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.

Huh? What has that got anything to do with Federer taking out Murray and Djokovic, when well out of his prime and reaching no. 1?
Hell, if this Fed can give the so-called strong-era guys a run for their money (not to mention with all the "slow-court" advantages they have for their backboarding), he sure as hell can take care of them with a younger set of legs.
Not to mention Fed had his struggles with Hewitt too. He overcame those and he would overcome these guys well enough.

[mandy01]

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.

What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. At any point. Bar of course, a few losses. You have nothing to show for the kind of argument you're trying to make. Not to mention, previously dominant or not, Djokovic-Murray, with their youth should've been able to keep him at bay. They have an inherent advantage too, with courts slowing down all over the place. They haven't been able to do it. Instead, Federer's the guy Djokovic struggled with the most in his dominant year. His game is the one that gives Djokovic fits more than anyone else's even at his very best.

Next time, do try for a cogent argument.

[Feather]

Originally Posted by mandy01

What are you on about about? What has his previous domination got anything to do with him reaching no. 1 NOW? Out of the top guys (the so-called stronger generation), Federer was the only guy who managed to beat Djokovic in 2011 and that too on his worst surface, in a major. Get over your crap. Federer is too good of a player to be simply phased out by bunch of backboarders. He struggles against Nadal but he has NEVER struggled like that against either Djokovic or Murray. At any point. You have nothing to show for the kind of argument you're trying to make. Not to mention, previously dominant or not, Djokovic-Murray, with their youth should've been able to keep him at bay. They have an inherent advantage too, with courts slowing down all over the place. They haven't been able to do it. Instead, Federer's the guy Djokovic struggled with the most in his dominant year. His game is the one that gives Djokovic fits more than anyone else's even at his very best.

Next time, do try for a cogent argument.

Veroniquem is losing it. With Rafa's absence she has become a FULL blown Roger Federer hater. It's exactly what tennis_pro said about her. I feel it's true

[mandy01]

And since this is a "cake" thread,





nom, nom...

[Hood_Man]

Originally Posted by mandy01

And since this is a "cake" thread,

nom, nom...

Oh God, they look so good

[Fiji]

This is the sweetest.

[jokinla]

Originally Posted by coloskier

Even though I don't like Djoker, he is seeded #1. He is supposed to have the easiest draw. That is one of the reasons why you strive for #1.

So what happened at the US Open, he was 2, and had the same draw. So much for your theory.

[doobiedoodoo]

Yummy Cake!!

[Hood_Man]

Speaking of cake, I saw Django Unchained last night, and I've got a real craving to try that White Cake Leonardo Dicaprio served up.