abmk
Bionic Poster
AO court was on the slower side. Get a clue.
Best slow HC player Djokovic was getting taken to 5 sets by Stan in Ao 13 and AO 14 (incl. losing in AO 14).
Safin was even better in AO 05.
2000 USO Safin vs. 2010 USO Nadal/2011 USO Djokovic
- Thread starter Devin
- Start date
AO court was on the slower side. Get a clue.
Best slow HC player Djokovic was getting taken to 5 sets by Stan in Ao 13 and AO 14 (incl. losing in AO 14).
Safin was even better in AO 05.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Yep. Rebound Ace was a pretty fast court. Definitely much faster than Plexi. So my point still stands
abmk
Bionic Poster
depends which year of plexi we're talking about. not as slow as plexi in 11/12 for sure, but still a slow HC.
we're talking about slow/slower HC at the AO, are we not ?
Safin with 1 win and 2 finals > 1 win+2 semis for Stan at the AO
abmk
Bionic Poster
Rebounce ace was a pretty fast court ? LOL , ha ha, cluelessless at its zenith !!!!!
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Rebound is generally the faster court tho
Won't disagree with that
According to ITF
Category 1 - Slow
Category 2 - Medium-Slow
Category 3 - Medium
Category 4 - Medium-Fast
Category 5 - Fast
Gerflor Taraflex (Lyon, MS Paris): 5 - Fast
Greenset (Former MS Madrid) : 3 - Medium
Plexipave (Stockholm): 3 - Medium
RuKortHard (Zagreb): 5- Fast
Decoturf II (Indianapolis): 4 - Medium-Fast
Rebound Ace (Former AO): 4/5 - Medium-Fast / Fast
Premier Court: (Not listed)
Play Pave (Chennai): 3 - Medium
Plexicushion (AO): 3/4 - Medium / Medium-Fast
Decoturf (USO): 4 - Medium-Fast
so ye Rebound Ace was pretty fast
Back in the day it was considered slow but rn it would be considered fast lol
NatF
Bionic Poster
I don't think Murray was that good in 2012 tbh, like 80 errors and half the number of winners - Murray was on Agassi in 2004's level maybe. If we're including losses then there's Del Poro in 2009 to consider as well. Wasn't that kind of era
These comments man, Federer is just better at the USO IMO. A match like the USO 2007 QF where Roddick played two sets almost as good as any I've seen ended in straights, Djokovic would have probably gone 5 in a similar situation at the AO.You're completely ignoring my point about the masters, is it because you haven't got an answer for it? Position in the calendar matters a great deal.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Safin and Fed would both lose to Novak if they played on slow HC. Fast HC is a different story, but considering how good Djoker's defense is, I wouldn't put it past him to win. Safin was a mental midget anyway.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I don't think Murray was that good in 2012 tbh, like 80 errors and half the number of winners - Murray was on Agassi in 2004's level maybe. If we're including losses then there's Del Poro in 2009 to consider as well. Wasn't that kind of era
You're completely ignoring my point about the masters, is it because you haven't got an answer for it? Position in the calendar matters a great deal.
pretty much this.
I don't think Murray in AO 12 SF was any better than Agassi in USO 04 QF vs Fed.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
And he also approached the net 44% of the time against Safin in 2001 and beat him in straight sets so that doesn't mean he has to stay back to beat him. It means he ran into the wrong opponent on the wrong day. Him approaching the net that much in the 2001 final was because he was dead tired and knew he had no chance to stay and grind it out in rallies with Hewitt who was running down everything. He wouldn't have won that match that day no matter what he did since he was gassed.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Even Fed in 08 said Plexi was slower than Rebound
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I don't think Murray was that good in 2012 tbh, like 80 errors and half the number of winners - Murray was on Agassi in 2004's level maybe. If we're including losses then there's Del Poro in 2009 to consider as well. Wasn't that kind of era
You're completely ignoring my point about the masters, is it because you haven't got an answer for it? Position in the calendar matters a great deal.
That was the slowest AO court ever so the numbers from that year reflect that. Even Nadal and Djokovic had more errors than winners stats wise so you have to look at the forced errors. I do think Murray played a great match that day.
Of course Del Potro in 2009 was a very high level but that was the end of Federer's dominance there. He had already won 5 straight at that point and 2009 was a much tougher year in quality and on par with 2011 and 2012, maybe even a bit higher. And I think Djokovic is better at the AO so we just agree to disagree.
Position in the calendar does matter somewhat but can't be ignored completely. Federer only skipped one of those events from 2004-2009.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Position in the calendar is significant enough to render the comparison almost meaningless IMO. Federer was all about peaking for the slams.
And yes the AO was slow but Murray was quite bad in a couple of those sets. Massively overrated match. The final was had lots of errors too but it was clearly better than the SF IMO. There are several matches where players went toe to toe with Federer for a few sets at the USO but he shut them down before they went to 5 - Hewitt in 2005 played at least as well as Murray as well IMO. The AO 2012 wasn't Djokovic's best form by any stretch anyway.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, not in general.
But since Safin's returning+passing was so sharp that day in the USO 2000 and Sampras was able to hang with him from the baseline, he should have stayed back more.Safin would still have some edge, but nowhere near what he was getting with Sampras at the net on that extra% of net approaches from Sampras.
Sampras could've won a set and tried allow seeds of doubt to be sown in Safin's mind.
If Safin kept up his form, he'd still win, mind you.
But Sampras would give himself a clearly better shot had he stayed back more - with net approaches % being closer to 35% rather than 50%.
As far as the 2001 USO SF match goes, Safin was playing clearly worse in that match as well.
As far as the USO 2001 F, again, he had more of a chance from the baseline vs Hewitt. But then Sampras came through a tough draw and wouldn't have won unless Hewitt's level dipped significantly.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Murray in the 12 AO SF wasn't any better than 05 Hewitt or 07 Roddick imo, and 04 Agassi was better. 06 Blake/Roddick a bit behind, but not that much, especially Blake. That 2012 AO SF was really poor serving from both guys, especially from Murray and it made the match seem better than it was with a lot of baseline play, and even then there were a lot of errors. Murray couldn't win a point on his 2nd serve for the better part of 2 sets and played really bad in the first set too. Yeah he was quite good in the middle 2 sets, and played some inspiring stuff for a couple games in the 5th, but not something amazing and for Djokovic to lose both of the middle 2 sets and have to go 5 is pretty shocking. I just can't rate a performance like that very highly.
abmk
Bionic Poster
possibly. I have to revisit that match tbh.
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, it wouldn't be considered fast now either.
those are just guidelines from the ITF, speed can be varied by the timing of the laying, amount of sand etc.
Rebound ace in general was a slow HC, only slightly faster than plexi from 08-09 (arguably 10), 13-16.
11 and 12 were definitely clearly slower though.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Yeah this. Difference is those guys played lights out against Federer for a few sets and he either let one slip or none and in Djokovic's case he let them both go.
Wawrinka at the AO in 2013 is another story though, Djokovic was a bit off in the first set but Wawrinka was really good for basically the whole match.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Murray vs Djokovic : only 92 winners+forced errors to 86 UEs (only +6)
Federer vs Nadal : 96 winners+errors forced to 63 UEs (+33)
Murray --> lost in 5 sets
Federer --> lost in 4 sets.
Djokovic-Murray AO 2012 SF : https://web.archive.org/web/2012020...open.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day17/1601ms.html
Nadal-Federer AO 2012 SF : https://web.archive.org/web/2012020...open.com/en_AU/scores/stats/day16/1602ms.html
metsman
G.O.A.T.
yeah Wawrinka sort of imploded a bit in the 2nd when serving for it, made a good amount of errors to get broken twice in a row, but besides that was rock solid with great peaks. Granted, I think Djokovic was hitting the ball uncharacteristically short for a decent part of that match to let Wawrinka dictate, but even then Stan is clearly the best of all the opponents we are talking about here. Nadal in 2012 was a little better than 04 Agassi, but that 04 match is really tough to judge due to the wind, which played a direct part in the outcomes of the 4th and 5th set. Nadal played a mediocre 2nd and a bad 3rd, so Stan is clearly ahead. And Djokovic being not at his best and letting some sets slip in which his opponent was playing well but far from unplayable in that 12 AO also clouds things. We might grade Hewitt and Roddick differently if Fed lets that 2nd set slip against Hewitt in 05 or lets any one of the first 2 sets go vs Roddick in 07 (or the third in 06 for that matter). Instead, he came up with multiple clutch shots under pressure.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Render the comparison meaningless? Not quite. I can even say Federer 's record of 5 straight is more impressive than Djokovic's of 5/6 (even if I lean more towards Djokovic because of his falling in the 2011-2013 period) but I can't say Federer was more dominant on med/fast hardcourt than Djokovic was on med/slow hardcourt.
That final is one of the greatest matches they ever played against each other so clearly the winner/ue count does not tell the full story on a slow court such as that.
I explained that Djokovic's dominance over his main rivals, at the AO and on that type of hardcourt, is why I lean toards him so we have to agree to disagree on this.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I mostly agree with this except Sampras didn't get to break point until the last service game when Safin served it out. It's hard to win a set like that.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Except, mine and NatF's point isn't about Fed on med/fast court vs Djoko on med/slow HC.
Its strictly about Fed at USO vs Djoko at the AO.
NatF
Bionic Poster
There are other med/fast events etc...I just don't think the comparison is very good. It's not apples to apples, maybe apples to pears.
Meh, the main point was that it was hypocritical of you to claim we're very biased for favouring Federer at his best over anyone at the USO while you do the same at the AO.
Yeah this.
Pretty much all Federer's runs at the USO had him in better form than Djokovic in 2012, so there wasn't an opportunity for well playing opponents to make things very tight.
abmk
Bionic Poster
staying back a bit more rather than chipping and charging that much would have helped on the return games.
Also not getting broken by Safin's returning+passing and holding it all the way to a TB.(i.e stay back more on 2nd serves)
Remember, Sampras had pulled a miracle comeback in the 2nd set vs Krajicek in the QF (from 2-6 down) and was unbeaten in TBs at that USO (won all 7 of 7 TBs). So he'd have his shot at winning a TB even vs Safin. (not saying he would have won as Safin was obviously playing better than anyone else Sampras faced)
And if they went to 2 TBs, I'd say Sampras would win definitely win one.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Djokovic reigned over guys who had beaten him in majors before though and tougher rivals overall. It also was in a tougher era of tennis so all that is weighed in. Federer's toughest rivals at the USO at his peak were Roddick, Hewitt and Davydenko where none of them have ever beaten him in a major, and you could say Agassi challenged him as well but he was past his best by then. We never got to see Nadal versus Federer at the USO for example (not Federer's fault though) to see how that match up would have played out. So in theory, that's why I can say I favor Djokovic over almost anyone at the AO at his best because I've seen him play just about everyone and how he would fare against them.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Beating Nadal a one time AO winner in 5 and non peak Federer means Djokovic should be favoured over everyone in history? If you say so
Ignoring that Federer beat Djokovic for two titles at the USO as well?
abmk
Bionic Poster
nope, Federer's main rivals in the 6 years (2004-09) at USO were Agassi, Roddick, Hewitt and Djokovic.
not Davydenko.
In that time-frame, Federer beat Agassi 2x, Roddick 2x, Hewitt 3x (tbf, 2009 Hewitt wasn't exactly prime Hewitt) and Djokovic 3x.
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
Beating Nadal a one time AO winner in 5 and non peak Federer means Djokovic should be favoured over everyone in history? If you say so
I said almost everyone, not everyone.
I didn't ignore that but I didn't see how that was relevant if I'm talking about the AO. If we're being picky, Djokovic's matches against Federer at the USO from 2007-2009 are closer than Federer matches against him in 2008, 2011 and 2016. But no need to stray too far off the main point.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
All mugs. Federer having so much trouble with yougovic tells you how good youngovic was
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
I said Federer at his peak unless your fanbase wants to change what we consider Federer's peak these days. I assume it is still 2004-2007 and he only played Djokovic once then when he played Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko and Agassi twice each.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
The "Murray has beaten Djoel in a major before", how amazing for Emperor Djokovic to reign over him and "Roddick and co. are mugs because they never beat Fed in a major" gets me every time.Beating Nadal a one time AO winner in 5 and non peak Federer means Djokovic should be favoured over everyone in history? If you say so
Anyways, Murray is irrelevant here as some extra competition Djokovic faced. Basically, Djokovic beat Nadal, who was slightly tougher than the toughest opponent Federer faced, and he barely beat Wawrinka, with some help from the line judge, who was tougher than anyone Fed played, yes. Djokovic's top end competition was stronger in the years he won, however, Federer did play a deeper and more varied array of competition and was more dominant in his wins. So if you favor Djokovic over anyone at the AO it's not impossible that others may favor Federer over anyone at the USO.
abmk
Bionic Poster
fine, then pick the same period for Novak for comparision -- 4 years only at the AO. not 6 years.
abmk
Bionic Poster
he was good, but not that big of a trouble. Won 1 set in 3 matches combined at the USO vs fed.
and none of them were mugs. the only thing mug-like is your posts here.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Lmao all the sets were so close. Federer was lucky Djokovic was a huge mental midget back then
What’s even funnier is that you think people like Roddick and Davy were top tier opponents or something. Nowhere near A tier
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The main time frame in the discussion was 6 years but I said at his peak to make a point. 2008 and 2009 in my eyes were tougher fields for Federer but he was no longer at his peak and his domination was over in 2009.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
08 USO was pretty clearly the easiest win of the 5 lol.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I said almost everyone, not everyone.
You also mentioned Federer's rivals at the USO and barely mentioned Agassi who was still capable of raising his game at the USO and neglected Djokovic entirely.
There's much less variance in Djokovic's level at the USO than there is for Federer at the AO
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
The sets were very close. Three 7-6 sets, four 7-5 sets and one 6-4 set. He also was a lot of trouble in 2007 well before he was going to hit his stride.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Set points and breaks wasted
NatF
Bionic Poster
Whatever tier they're in it's much higher than whatever tier you're in as a poster
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
No it wasn't. 2006 was the easiest or 2004 when he had a walkover. The level of tennis went up a notch in 2008 in my view and Andreev did take him to 5 and Djokovic took him to 4 so it wasn't all that easy.
B
BrokenGears
Guest
Whatever tier they're in it's much higher than whatever tier you're in as a poster
U hurt my feeling
NoleFam
Bionic Poster
If he had his head on straight things could have turned out a lot different that day. Total choking when he had those chances.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Andreev was clearly weaker than Blake in 06, Roddick about the same as Djokovic, Murray even worse than Davydenko. In 04, Agassi alone makes it tougher because that is an opponent that could have actually beaten 08 Fed whereas 04 Fed would still cruise to the title in 08.
abmk
Bionic Poster
Federer was 2 points away from winning the USO 09 final. it hardly looked over until it actually was. He'd beaten Soderling in the QF and Djokovic in the SF convincingly, playing some damn good tennis.
remove 2012 at the AO for djokovic and take the other 4 years he won (11,13,15,16) his competition is on same level as federer's at the USO from 2004-07.
NatF
Bionic Poster
U hurt my feeling
Sorry, logic put me up to it - he says you've been bulling him.
metsman
G.O.A.T.
Yeah he would have won a set. If that's a lot different, then sure.
abmk
Bionic Poster
the only mental midgetry from djokovic was in the 1st set of USO 07. stop BSing.
and federer won sets 1 and 4 in USO 08 very comfortably. 6-3 and 6-2 respectively.
you didn't even watch sh*t in that timeframe. so stop talking.
davy was not a top tier opponent at the USO for fed.
Hewitt and Roddick were.
NatF
Bionic Poster
Not like Federer didn't have chances against Djokovic in 2011 at the AO either...
