Something I would like to see people realize: Slam wins should not be everything

InsideOut900 · Feb 9, 2016

FedFosterWallace said:
What do you mean by that? Grass until '87. Rebound Ace until '07. Those were both fast surfaces. Slow-down once switch made to Plexicushion in '08.

Plexi seemed distinctively slow to me in 2011 and 2012. Other than that I don't see it much slower than RA. Even faster at times,especially during the day

metsman said:
agreed...WTF is basically just another AO today. Before it at least used to be a separate event as it was indoors(unlike the USO) and fast (unlike AO). Now, it is both indoors and slow, a lot like the AO (which is not indoors all the time but it is not subject to the elements that much). So that's definitely unfair to Nadal but Djokovic did win the old YEC while Nadal did not although to be fair Nadal ran into Fed two years in a row while Novak's 08 field was depleted by Fed's injury, Nadal/Roddick pulling out and even then it was far from a comfortable win.

Imo Novak must get to 13 and RG to surprass Nadal. Which I think he will. In my mind his peak play won't surprass Nadal's ever but you gotta give credit where credit is due.

On what surfaces exactly. I don't see Nadal taking out Djokovic other than clay and grass. On every type of HC,Djokovic gets the edge. And even on grass is not that sure.
Djokovic didn't seem to have the mandatory consistency in Slams to prove my point,but in Masters matches he put quite some performances against Nadal throughtout the course of time.

Gary Duane · Feb 9, 2016

mika1979 said:
Honestly I am really afraid that it might be something more sinister with Nadal disappearing other than injury. The way he looks out there is not like player that has come back from injury blowing away cobwebs. And the shadiness with Puerto saga I don't know.

Rumors of PEDs will never stop unless he somehow gets his mojo back and it is clear that he is doing it cleanly. I'm not say whether or not those rumors are correct.

Gary Duane · Feb 9, 2016

Navdeep Srivastava said:
Everything spot on , but Nole need 17 not 16 to match Fed unless he complete 2 cgs which is highly unlikely as he still has to win even one RG.

If Novak gets to 16 I would not argue any kind of significant difference in career based on 1 less slam.

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

InsideOut900 said:
Plexi seemed distinctively slow to me in 2011 and 2012. Other than that I don't see it much slower than RA. Even faster at times,especially during the day

On what surfaces exactly. I don't see Nadal taking out Djokovic other than clay and grass. On every type of HC,Djokovic gets the edge. And even on grass is not that sure.
Djokovic didn't seem to have the mandatory consistency in Slams to prove my point,but in Masters matches he put quite some performances against Nadal throughtout the course of time.

fast HC imo his peak is slightly above.

InsideOut900 · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
fast HC imo his peak is slightly above.

It is quite some news that Nadal beats Djokovic on slow HC.

Hopefully you are not thinking at AO2012 final.

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

Djokovic2011 said:
Just because Federer won the USO in '08 and reached the final in '09 beating Djokovic both times doesn't necessarily mean his level from those years would beat Novak's in '11. Tennis doesn't work like that abmk.

uhh, say what ?

fed of USO 2008 vs djoko > fed of USO 11 vs djoko clearly
fed of USO 09 vs djoko > fed of USO 11 vs djoko clearly

fed of USO 11 had MPs vs djoko of USO 11 who played arguably his best match at the USO

how difficult is to think that a better federer (2008/09 ) would've beaten him ?

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

InsideOut900 said:
It is quite some news that Nadal beats Djokovic on slow HC.
Hopefully you are not thinking at AO2012 final.

I said fast HC? Peak Djoker beats any nadal on slow hard although no doubt 09 AO Nadal would make things interesting.

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
fast HC imo his peak is slightly above.

Nadal's peak is also higher than Federer's on fast HC. Which version of Federer would beat 2010 USO Nadal for example?!

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

NatF said:
What if it meant Djokovic would never get the French? Would you say no then?

Then I'd definitely be kicking him out of my bed.

I'd do ANYTHING to ensure Djokovic wins the French, and I mean anything!

InsideOut900 · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
I said fast HC? Peak Djoker beats any nadal on slow hard although no doubt 09 AO Nadal would make things interesting.

Yup,Nadal of 09AO vs Djoko of 2013 semi AO,that would be epic.
But yet, Cinci 08-09 and Paris 09. Check them a bit. Those were fast I reckon

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Nadal's peak is also higher than Federer's on fast HC. Which version of Federer would beat 2010 USO Nadal for example?!

2004-2006 Federer? The guy was ok at the USO back in the day...especially USO finals..and back then he had the confidence so mental block against Nadal would not be an issue. Also faster surfaces.

Plus a Federer would match up better with a more aggressive bigger serving Nadal than he would grinder Nadal who hit everything to his backhand and sliced every serve to his backhand

2010 Nadal I think would go at least 5 with 07 Federer and would have a fair shot of winning. He would beat any other Fed at the USO too.

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

Gary Duane said:
If Novak gets to 16 I would not argue any kind of significant difference in career based on 1 less slam.

Besides the fact it took him longer + he achieved it against no-names/declining ATGs.

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
2004-2006 Federer? The guy was ok at the USO back in the day...especially USO finals..and back then he had the confidence so mental block against Nadal would not be an issue. Also faster surfaces.

Plus a Federer would match up better with a more aggressive bigger serving Nadal than he would grinder Nadal who hit everything to his backhand and sliced every serve to his backhand

2010 Nadal I think would go at least 5 with 07 Federer and would have a fair shot of winning. He would beat any other Fed at the USO too.

Naah, i dont think so. 2010 would be to strong for any version of Federer. On top of his regular fantastic defensive skills, and his mighty forehand, his serve was extraordinary back then and he was doing some great damage with his serve in that tournament! Too complete for any version of Federer i'm afraid. And LOL about the mental block. Did Federer have mental block against 17 Y/O Nadal in Miami also...

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

InsideOut900 said:
Yup,Nadal of 09AO vs Djoko of 20
13 semi AO,that would be epic.
But yet, Cinci 08-09 and Paris 09. Check them a bit. Those were fast I reckon

Paris 10 was crazy fast...09 was probably around medium.

I've seen all those matches..I watched them at the time, but I mean it's not like Nadal was playing well in those matches...especially Paris 09 lol...he was downright awful that part of the year in 09. Cincy 08 he was burned out from his summer run of Queens/Wimby/Olympics/Toronto, Cincy 09 he wasn't great returning from the injury. I mean not making excuses for Nadal, those were great wins from Djoker and he deserved them, but I can also bring up Montreal 13, USO 10, Olympics 08 but I'm not going to tell you that Djoker was playing great in those matches either.

But for me the key indicator is that Djokovic in the 11 USO final (on a slower surface) wasn't THAT much better than the 10 final. Check the stats, better returning, but probably worse serving (which is understandable because of the injury). Nadal however was awful in the 11 USO final compared to 10 and that is what made the difference. Djokovic wasn't that great in the 11 USO final especially after the second set, his serve was going down the drain, he was clearly on his last legs and just swinging from his heels and spinning in serves but Nadal just collapsed after that third set..it was uncharacteristic for nadal and showed Djoker was in his head. Much like the 09 Aussie final for Fed.

Imo 2010 USO final Nadal would slightly edge 2011 USO semis Djoker (or whatever you think peak fast hard Djoker is, although like I said that USO wasn't exactly fast) in 5. It would be a hell of a match..but honestly if you wanted to argue the other way I wouldn't really object. Their peaks on fast hard are close enough...Djoker has greater consistency on the surface though and will likely end up better overall. Same deal on grass.

So Djokovic vs Nadal is a debate in consistency vs peak play I guess but it seems Djoker will end up with far greater consistency so it will likely bridge the (small) difference in peak play and the fact that Nadal was better on his best surface.

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Naah, i dont think so. 2010 would be to strong for any version of Federer. On top of his regular fantastic defensive skills, and his mighty forehand, his serve was extraordinary back then and he was doing some great damage with his serve in that tournament! To complete for any version of Federer i'm afraid. And LOL about the mental block. Did Federer have mental block against 17 Y/O Nadal in Miami also...

and the delusions continue ...

he lost to nadal in miami 04 because he was sick ..he was 5-2 vs nadal off-clay(including that ) from 2004-07 ..

oh and I forgot to ask : did Murray win the wimbledon SF in 2015 vs federer in straights .

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Naah, i dont think so. 2010 would be to strong for any version of Federer. On top of his regular fantastic defensive skills, and his mighty forehand, his serve was extraordinary back then and he was doing some great damage with his serve in that tournament! To complete for any version of Federer i'm afraid. And LOL about the mental block. Did Federer have mental block against 17 Y/O Nadal in Miami also...

he was sick and that is the slowest HC on tour?
And I bet Fed would rather have Nadal serving flat and more to his FH than spinning every ball to his backhand. Federer is one of the best ever at returning hard and flat serves...

Regardless it is impossible to argue with someone who thinks freakin peak USO federer would have no shot against Nadal...

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
Besides the fact it took him longer + he achieved it against no-names/declining ATGs.

Federer, Nadal and Murray are no names?!

Well they sure sound bigger to me than Baghdatis, Gonzales and Roddick. And I really don't think it matters how long it takes to win your majors as long as you end up winning them.

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

abmk said:
and the delusions continue ...

he lost to nadal in miami 04 because he was sick ..he was 5-2 vs nadal off-clay(including that ) from 2004-07 ..

oh and I forgot to ask : did Murray win the wimbledon SF in 2015 vs federer in straights .

Aha, he was sick. Ok then, good to know

Always something with Federer when he is losing some match

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Aha, he was sick. Ok then, good to know Always something with Federer when he is losing some match

learn one thing at a time ...that's good enough for someone who predicted that murray would beat federer in straights in wim 15 ..

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
he was sick and that is the slowest HC on tour?
And I bet Fed would rather have Nadal serving flat and more to his FH than spinning every ball to his backhand. Federer is one of the best ever at returning hard and flat serves...

Regardless it is impossible to argue with someone who thinks freakin peak USO federer would have no shot against Nadal...

I only think that Peak Nadal would beat Peak Federer at USO. And that Nadal did performed at the higher level in 2010 than Federer ever did at the USO. If this thinking is heresy, then yes i'm heretic...

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

Djokovic2011 said:
Federer, Nadal and Murray are no names?! Well they sure sound bigger to me than Baghdatis, Gonzales and Roddick. And I really don't think it matters how long it takes to win your majors as long as you end up winning them.

Fed is 34 years old/a declining ATG. Nadal is in the same boat.

Murray is not a no-name, but let's not pretend he's a level above Roddick or Hewitt. And you guys attack Fed over his slams won over these two, yet slam wins over Murray mean about as much (if not less given his horrible record in major finals).

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
I only think that Peak Nadal would beat Peak Federer at USO. And that Nadal did performed at the higher level in 2010 than Federer ever did at the USO. If this thinking is heresy, then yes i'm heretic...

And you say I know little to nothing about tennis.

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
I only think that Peak Nadal would beat Peak Federer at USO. And that Nadal did performed at the higher level in 2010 than Federer ever did at the USO. If this thinking is heresy, then yes i'm heretic...

federer of USO 04 final > nadal of USO 10 final ...its not even close ..

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
Fed is 34 years old/a declining ATG. Nadal is in the same boat.

Murray is not a no-name, but let's not pretend he's a level above Roddick or Hewitt. And you guys attack Fed over his slams won over these two, yet slam wins over Murray mean about as much (if not less given his horrible record in major finals).

Out of interest Saby, what players would Novak need to beat in slam finals over the next few years(if he were to reach the 16/17 mark that is) for you to consider him "worthy" of being mentioned in the same sentence as Federer? Have a good think about it cos I'd genuinely like to know.

Gary Duane · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
Besides the fact it took him longer + he achieved it against no-names/declining ATGs.

I'll leave that to the people who have GOAT arguments.

You know how it is around here.

Sampras was crap because he could not win RG.
Nadal is crap for any number of reasons, most of which make no sense to me.
Fed is crap because he has a losing H2H against Nadal.
Novak is crap because no one younger than him has a positive H2H, and now no one older than him does either. (I may be forgetting someone who beat him and then retired.)

And so it goes!

kevaninho · Feb 9, 2016

mattosgrant said:
This type of argument could be applied to many players. One could say when comparing Borg and Sampras "if the WTF were on clay instead Borg would have won 8 and Sampras 0". However you NEVER heard that argument when comparing Borg to Sampras, including from the many who argue Borg should rate above. Phantom what ifs about what if this event were on another court are really stretching things. Particularly when as I mentioned the WTF was never at any point in tennis history on clay.

Yes but if you mention WTFs in your argument then it has to be accepted that it would look a whole lot different if it wasn't played on Novaks favourite surface, no?
I mean another scenario is the Masters titles. Being that most of them are on hard courts clearly suits certain players more than others. Its all a valid argument, and it would be the same argument if there were 2 clay slams, 1 HC and 1 grass. You would've had Nadal on 20 by now.

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

abmk said:
federer of USO 04 final > nadal of USO 10 final ...its not even close ..

Yeah but Federer performed well against one of his favorite pigeons, while Nadal was doing it against fellow ATG, it's not the same. It's like me saying that Djokovic is having the highest fast HC peak only because at last years USO he destroyed the defending champ in 3 easy sets...

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

Djokovic2011 said:
Out of interest Saby, what players would Novak need to beat in slam finals over the next few years(if he were to reach the 16/17 mark that is) for you to consider him "worthy" of being mentioned in the same sentence as Federer? Have a good think about it cos I'd genuinely like to know.

All he needs is 18 slams to surpass Federer. It doesn't matter who he beats, the point I'm making is who he is beating isn't particularly impressive either.

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Yeah but Federer performed well against one of his favorite pigeons, while Nadal was doing it against fellow ATG, it's not the same. It's like me saying that Djokovic is having the highest fast HC peak only because at last years USO he destroyed the defending champ in 3 easy sets...

Comparing Hewitt to Cilic now. LMAO.

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Yeah but Federer performed well against one of his favorite pigeons, while Nadal was doing it against fellow ATG, it's not the same. It's like me saying that Djokovic is having the highest fast HC peak only because at last years USO he destroyed the defending champ in 3 easy sets...

Cilic was injured.

Nadal went to 4 vs djokovic just in case you needed to be reminded

federer double bagelled hewitt

kevaninho · Feb 9, 2016

mattosgrant said:
This type of argument could be applied to many players. One could say when comparing Borg and Sampras "if the WTF were on clay instead Borg would have won 8 and Sampras 0". However you NEVER heard that argument when comparing Borg to Sampras, including from the many who argue Borg should rate above. Phantom what ifs about what if this event were on another court are really stretching things. Particularly when as I mentioned the WTF was never at any point in tennis history on clay.

Correct. It could've been applied to many players, and rightly so. Many clay court specialists or grass court players were denied the chance to compete for this trophy on a favourable surface. Me personally, I think it should move around from year to year.

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
All he needs is 18 slams to surpass Federer. It doesn't matter who he beats, the point I'm making is who he is beating isn't particularly impressive either.

Precisely. So why do you keep whining all the time about his competition?

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

abmk said:
Cilic was injured.

Nadal went to 4 vs djokovic just in case you needed to be reminded

federer double bagelled hewitt

Well, is completely different challenge mentally and tennis wise to perform at that level against Hewitt and Djokovic, don't you think?!

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

Djokovic2011 said:
Precisely. So why do you keep whining all the time about his competition?

Because it's being presented as the greatest ever (or was in recent memory). I do not agree and give my opinion back. It doesn't mean I won't concede when he/if he surpasses Roger.

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
Because it's being presented as the greatest ever (or was in recent memory). I do not agree and give my opinion back. It doesn't mean I won't concede when he/if he surpasses Roger.

Who's presenting it as the greatest ever? And seriously mate, why do you let it bother you so much anyway? It's just a game at the end of the day!

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Well, is completely different challenge mentally and tennis wise to perform at that level against Hewitt and Djokovic, don't you think?!

well, the scores were entirely different as well, don't you think ?

federer already beat djokovic playing just as well as in 10 final in the 09 semi-final (actually better in the 09 semi-final )-- he did it in straights ...

also a convincing 4-set win in 08 as well ..

Deleted member 307496 · Feb 9, 2016

Djokovic2011 said:
Who's presenting it as the greatest ever? And seriously mate, why do you let it bother you so much anyway? It's just a game at the end of the day!

People/fans of Djoker who are saying Laver/Fed had it easy and Djoker is facing two ATGs in their prime/a very strong field. We both know the second option isn't true. Like you say, live in the present. It's not 2011 anymore.

timnz · Feb 9, 2016

kevaninho said:
Yes but if you mention WTFs in your argument then it has to be accepted that it would look a whole lot different if it wasn't played on Novaks favourite surface, no?
I mean another scenario is the Masters titles. Being that most of them are on hard courts clearly suits certain players more than others. Its all a valid argument, and it would be the same argument if there were 2 clay slams, 1 HC and 1 grass. You would've had Nadal on 20 by now.

French Open's would look a lot different if they were played on indoor carpet too. There needs to be a major indoor title in tennis. The WTF has ended up being that championship. (In the 46 times it has been played on 3 times has it been played outdoor (1974, 2003 & 2004)). You can't dismiss the WTF completely as being part of a great players Resume simply because it hasn't varied its surface very much. I don't criticize the French Open for always being played on Clay. Players are advantaged by the surface/conditions of some events and not others. On balance the indoor season is so small now - the advantage to certain players is much much more on the rest of the year where the majority of surfaces are either slow or medium slow.

Djokovic2011 · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
People/fans of Djoker who are saying Laver/Fed had it easy and Djoker is facing two ATGs in their prime/a very strong field. We both know the second option isn't true. Like you say, live in the present. It's not 2011 anymore.

As I just wrote in another thread, why not give Novak credit for simply being too good and outlasting his biggest rivals? Why does it always have to boil down to the competition being too lackluster? And I'm glad in a way that's it not 2011 anymore - 2016 is even better!

uliks · Feb 9, 2016

abmk said:
well, the scores were entirely different as well, don't you think ?

federer already beat djokovic playing just as well as in 10 final in the 09 semi-final (actually better in the 09 semi-final )-- he did it in straights ...

also a convincing 4-set win in 08 as well ..

I don't think so abmk. With Rafa's form in 2010, the H2H history beetwen them, the level in the whole tournament ( 2004 Federer was on the ropes against crippled, one legged Agassi FGS) Rafa probably dispatches 2004 Fed in 4 sets. Something like 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-2...

timnz · Feb 9, 2016

So here's the question. Other than the 8 weeks of the slams a year - are all of the other events on the calendar essentially worth nothing? Are they equivalent to simply practice sessions for players to get ready for the slams? If so, why bother with ATP points for them? If all they are are warm-up why not get rid of the pretense and just play exhibition events for the rest of the year? I say this because when I read sentences like 'All Djokovic has to do is get 18 slams to pass Federer ie to be regarded as greater". Shouldn't other criteria come into play? Perhaps if Djokovic gets to 15 Slams but has 20 more Masters 1000's than Federer and 10 more WTF's - shouldn't they count? And if they don't count - then that is saying that the WTF, Masters 1000's are equivalent to winning futures and challenger events (or for that matter equivalent to losing in the first round of challenger events - because WTF's and Masters 1000's are worth nothing (in this realm of logic)).

Navdeep Srivastava · Feb 9, 2016

Gary Duane said:
If Novak gets to 16 I would not argue any kind of significant difference in career based on 1 less slam.

Fair enough

timnz · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
paris and WTF are slow as hell and have been since 2011.

Cincy is at a higher altitude so it plays faster. They are played on decoturf but I bet the court mix/balls make a difference. I think the USO series uses the same balls but I bet the USO surface is grittier than Cincy. Shanghai today isn't even as fast as the Shanghai TMC even though both apparently used the same decoturf so there must be some sand/change in balls. AO I don't see what everyone else sees, it still plays pretty slow at night but I am fine with the AO being slow...that's how it was always supposed to be. The problem is that Wimbledon is at best medium-fast and USO is medium.

There is only one court at the 5 biggest events in tennis that still plays fast and that is court 1 at Wmbledon...that is scary.

Dubai is the fastest court on tour but it is only a 500 imo.

Meant to be slow? Why? I think of it as a horrible aberation. For most of the Australian Open's history (since 1924 when it became a major it has been on grass (until 1987). Now we have this horrible 'clay wanna be' surface.How is it 'meant to be' slow?

Re. Wimbledon - it is not fast - it is medium. It hasn't been fast since 2001.

killerboi2 · Feb 9, 2016

A lot of Djokovic fans probably gonna have trouble admitting it, but his competition has been a joke in recent times. A number two who looks lost 9 times out of 10 against top opposition(this isn't an exaggeration considering his awful head to head against top 5 in last few years), a past it Federer who hasn't won a slam in more than 3 years now, a Nadal even worse than Murray (let that sink in for a moment) and Wawrinka who would never have the legacy of a genuine top player due to being inconsistent. The rest of the field are so pathetic that they aren't even worth talking about. Probably have a combined total of 5 m1000s or something.

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

timnz said:
Meant to be slow? Why? I think of it as a horrible aberation. For most of the Australian Open's history (since 1924 when it became a major it has been on grass (until 1987). Now we have this horrible 'clay wanna be' surface.How is it 'meant to be' slow?

Re. Wimbledon - it is not fast - it is medium. It hasn't been fast since 2001.

Two slams should be slow and two should be fast.

Relative to today's speeds Wimby was still very fast 03-04. Today it is a joke.

mattosgrant · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
Nadal's peak is also higher than Federer's on fast HC. Which version of Federer would beat 2010 USO Nadal for example?!

2004 U.S Open final Federer definitely would IMO. Federer fans though do underrate Nadal, and would probably say every performance by peak Federer would beat that Nadal, and it simply isn't true.

mattosgrant · Feb 9, 2016

Sabratha said:
Comparing Hewitt to Cilic now. LMAO.

There are probably some who think Cilic at his best is harder to beat than Hewitt at his not due to manipulation for their favorite player in this case but due to clichéd thinking that the most power = better. Which is flawed rational of course. By that logic Na Li or Petra Kvitova would be harder to beat at their best than Chris Evert for instance.

timnz · Feb 9, 2016

metsman said:
Two slams should be slow and two should be fast.

Relative to today's speeds Wimby was still very fast 03-04. Today it is a joke.

Well today we have 1 Slam slow (FO), 1 slam medium slow (AO), 2 slams medium (Wimbledon and US Open)

abmk · Feb 9, 2016

uliks said:
I don't think so abmk. With Rafa's form in 2010, the H2H history beetwen them, the level in the whole tournament ( 2004 Federer was on the ropes against crippled, one legged Agassi FGS) Rafa probably dispatches 2004 Fed in 4 sets. Something like 6-3 4-6 6-3 6-2...

again, you prove you have no clue of tennis ...agassi was playing close to prime level tennis that summer - he won cincy beating roddick/hewitt and played real well vs federer ( the heavy windy conditions helped take the match to 5 sets , otherwise, probably would've been over in 4 sets tbh )

also fed's level in 04 final was like 10 times better than his level in the QF vs agassi ..

again, you got owned with the djokovic bit,so you ran away from that ...

rafa gets a set at max vs federer of USO 04 final ..

metsman · Feb 9, 2016

mattosgrant said:
2004 U.S Open final Federer definitely would IMO. Federer fans though do underrate Nadal, and would probably say every performance by peak Federer would beat that Nadal, and it simply isn't true.

Peak performances by peak Fed would do it...and 04-06 USO finals were all peak performances. However the 07 USO final might not. 2010 USO Nadal was scary good but I think Fed would honestly play a more aggressive Nadal who serves bigger....would give him more forehands to hit, less pinned to the backhand off the return and in rallies, and he would welcome the extra UFE that is a byproduct of going bigger.

Something I would like to see people realize: Slam wins should not be everything

Legend

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

G.O.A.T.

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Bionic Poster

Legend

G.O.A.T.

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Banned

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Bionic Poster

Banned

Bionic Poster

Banned

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Hall of Fame

Banned

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Hall of Fame

Bionic Poster

Banned

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Bionic Poster

Bionic Poster

Deleted member 307496

Guest

Legend

Bionic Poster

Banned

Legend

Navdeep Srivastava

Guest

Legend

Hall of Fame

G.O.A.T.

Banned

Banned

Legend

Bionic Poster

G.O.A.T.

Similar threads