abmk
Bionic Poster
I think he meant to say no set lost on red clay.
I know!
I think he meant to say no set lost on red clay.
Were would you rank RG 17 Nadal?2007 Nadal vs 2012 Nadal at RG is a good debate.
Nadal was better pre final in 2012 but a bit better in the final in 2007.
Not fully sure.Were would you rank RG 17 Nadal?
Indeed, better than Novak did against a 140 year old Federer with 1 knee and a lower back constructed out of bamboo.Fed did a decent job against a 90 year old Agassi who had been in and out of the care home tbh, will give him that
Yup. And way better ballstriking.Yeah, 35 year old Andre had better stamina after 3 five setters than 22.5 year old Tsitsipas. Embarrassing.
Tpas has not peaked yet.Yup. And way better ballstriking.
We saw how that worked out in the last 6 years.Of course. By virtue of having each other the entire time.
Fascinating that even the last 6 years had high competition than 03-07. Baffling reallyWe saw how that worked out in the last 6 years.
Fascinating that you think this.Fascinating that even the last 6 years had high competition than 03-07. Baffling really
Truly. I had to think about it for a while and i was surprised at myself for having to admit the very fact.Fascinating that you think this.
What's baffling is that you actually believe that.Fascinating that even the last 6 years had high competition than 03-07. Baffling really
Federer fans say the ELO is bad because Murray has a higher one than Sampras at peak level.Average opponent rank on slams:
Federer 30
Nadal 29
Djokovic 27
Average opponent Elo rating on slams:
Federer: 2012
Nadal: 2014
Djokovic: 2030
Based on this data, Federer had it the easiest so far, Nadal a tiny bit harder and Djokovic slightly harder then both.
But given the current state of competition in men tennis, it will probably end with Nadal the easiest, Federer a bit harder and Djokovic another bit harder opposition.
Source: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/headsToHeads (Select Big 3, Filter by slams, check 'stats vs all', expand 'Opponent & Time')
Normally the guys you grow up with face the same challenges as well as advantages as you do, so if you are more talented you will win.
How many times did Agassi stop Pete from winning Wimbledon or the US open ? How many times could Nadal stop Djokovic from wining the Aus open? How many times could Djokovic stop Nadal from winning the French Open ?
All this is either 0 or 1 time... negligible.
So there is no way that Safin/Roddick could have stopped Federer more than on 1 occasion at max. even if they were a bit more talented.
Main challenge comes from people who are 5-6 years below you.
In this common sense says that Federer has 2 ATGs who were 5-6 years below him and 1 of those ATGs happened to be a teenage prodigy which means he faced him at a high level earlier than required on Clay, that ruined his clay chances too.
In the case of Nadal-Djokvic they have Thiem-Dimitrov below them at 5-6 years younger.
That tells us that Novak had it the easiest.
This is what I think too. In the past the older ATG usually has much worse record vs. his younger ATG counter parts because that is just how it usually works. I'm trying to come up with an example from the past, but don't want to do too much research on this. Perhaps Connors vs McEnroe might fit the bill (14-20)? The younger players after Nadal and Djokovic should be beating them now, but they aren't. You say can it's because both are that great and I'd say it's true, but I believe there's something else going on here. I can't be sure what the reason is though, although myself being born in the 80s feel like youngsters nowadays are really quite different in their brought up and way of thinking. Toni Nadal has a lot to say on this. What's going now lends a small degree of support to the idea that eras cannot be compared. Would Djokovic have done as well as Federer did from 04-07 if he had been in his position? Hard to say for sure.
Well, Federer won 16 Slams without facing the true younger ATG or the ATG from his own generation.
This is what I think too. In the past the older ATG usually has much worse record vs. his younger ATG counter parts because that is just how it usually works. I'm trying to come up with an example from the past, but don't want to do too much research on this. Perhaps Connors vs McEnroe might fit the bill (14-20)? The younger players after Nadal and Djokovic should be beating them now, but they aren't. You say can it's because both are that great and I'd say it's true, but I believe there's something else going on here. I can't be sure what the reason is though, although myself being born in the 80s feel like youngsters nowadays are really quite different in their brought up and way of thinking. Toni Nadal has a lot to say on this. What's going now lends a small degree of support to the idea that eras cannot be compared. Would Djokovic have done as well as Federer did from 04-07 if he had been in his position? Hard to say for sure.
This!
Djokovic won lots of slams when Federer can be said to have declined .
Declining relative to his own level. He might not be declined compared to, say, Lendl at Wimbledon, but compared to Fed from 2003-2009? Absolutely.Wait, what? Roger had 2 match points for Wimbledon title last time they played there, how's that declining? The great Lendl never had that in his entire career.
Tell that to Pete Sampras who was kicked out by Hewitt-Safin.
Sampras would beat you up for insulting him if you told him that " Hey pete, hewitt and safin were crap and you lost to crap guys when you were 29-30 "
I think it's all relative: Novak could easily have lost one of those 2 points (the probability is there) and we would have a very different perspective on Roger's career.Declining relative to his own level. He might not be declined compared to, say, Lendl at Wimbledon, but compared to Fed from 2003-2009? Absolutely.
Honest question: are Safin and Hewitt considered ATGs?
Average opponent rank on slams:
Federer 30
Nadal 29
Djokovic 27
Average opponent Elo rating on slams:
Federer: 2012
Nadal: 2014
Djokovic: 2030
Based on this data, Federer had it the easiest so far, Nadal a tiny bit harder and Djokovic slightly harder then both.
But given the current state of competition in men tennis, it will probably end with Nadal the easiest, Federer a bit harder and Djokovic another bit harder opposition.
Source: https://www.ultimatetennisstatistics.com/headsToHeads (Select Big 3, Filter by slams, check 'stats vs all', expand 'Opponent & Time')
Which proves exactly what the creator of tennis ELO states:Federer fans say the ELO is bad because Murray has a higher one than Sampras at peak level.
Once we attach a single peak rating to every player, it’s only natural to start comparing across eras. While it’s always fun to do so, I’m not sure any rating system allows for useful cross-era comparisons in tennis. Elo doesn’t, either.
What you can do with Elo is compare how each player fared against her competition.
Yes, they definitely have, Federer won most of his slams during a power vacuum
But Nadal and Djokovic Era overlap 95% and Federer Era overlap Nadal/Djokovic Era 80% at least.Which proves exactly what the creator of tennis ELO states...
While this point that I am about to make has no connection with Sports, it has in connection with Bollywood (Hindi Cinema/Movies industry from India).
A weak era trend has been seen in Bollywood too ( Cc @Sunny Ali Sir ).
Decade of youngsters from the 70s ruled the 80s in Bollywood with a star called Amitabh Bachchan being the lead star, likewise young stars from 80s also had a good run in the 90s like Sunny Deol, Anil Kapoor etc etc, then came young stars (3 Khans) from 90s who ruled 00s and are ruling Bollywood till date in 2021. This happened because young stars from 00s were untalented, all the scripts which were supposed to go them in their second decade when they were supposed to rule went to the gen before i.e 90s guys in the 2010s. Guys like Salman Khan, Aamir Khan and even Akshay Kumar have delivered massive hits in Bollywood in their 3rd decade while the generation below them struggled.
So this trend has been seen in hindi film industry as well, so why this happens we need to analyze, it is a very interesting thought really.
From an athletic point of view I would say yes. Guys like Medvedev, Thiem and Zverev are just on a higher physical level than Safin, Roddick, Haas, Black etc were. From a quality pov they might be even but again if you can beat guys in their 20s when you are in your mid 30s that's harder than being in your 20s as well and doing the same. But Federer has also beaten many of those guys in recent years so he deserves big credit for it as well.
Thiem and co play with these big racquets and on these slow courts making them look stronger but then that is not true, Safin and Roddick were more powerful that him, Roddick serve and forehand in the 03-05 period used to zoom past guys faster than the blink of an eye.
Machan ... Roddick had a powerful forehand. Nobody is disputing that. The problem was that he completely lacked game craft, often hitting the forehand as hard as he could with no regard to where his opponent was or where he himself was. Look at Boris Becker and how he positioned himself and the ball. There is no comparison between Becker and Roddick. One was a grass court wizard, the other had a good serve and forehand and 0 court awareness. That was Roddick's main problem Machi.
Of course Becker was better than Roddick, no comparison.
But Roddick is better than all these jokers Novak defeated, including Murray, Roddick at his best is the 4th best player on Grass in the last 20 years after the big 3
Federer > Djoker > Nadal > Roddick > Murray > Others
If only Fed would have the great fortune to face that version of Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.Machan, you're calling a 3 time runner-up better than a 2 time Wimbledon champion? Come on Machi, you can do better than that. Murray is a significantly superior grass and hard court player over Roddick. Murray had an excellent tennis IQ. He didn't just hit the ball as hard as he could.
Also let's not forget that he did something that Federer could not in 3 attempts- beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.
Murray is greater but in terms of playing level you could make a case for Roddick on grass over Murray.Machan, you're calling a 3 time runner-up better than a 2 time Wimbledon champion? Come on Machi, you can do better than that. Murray is a significantly superior grass and hard court player over Roddick. Murray had an excellent tennis IQ. He didn't just hit the ball as hard as he could.
Also let's not forget that he did something that Federer could not in 3 attempts- beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.
Machan, you're calling a 3 time runner-up better than a 2 time Wimbledon champion? Come on Machi, you can do better than that. Murray is a significantly superior grass and hard court player over Roddick. Murray had an excellent tennis IQ. He didn't just hit the ball as hard as he could.
Also let's not forget that he did something that Federer could not in 3 attempts- beat Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.
If only Fed would have the great fortune to face that version of Djokovic in a Wimbledon final.
Murray is greater but in terms of playing level you could make a case for Roddick on grass over Murray.
He pushed Federer harder at Wimbeldon.Elis ... I'd be really interested in seeing the details of that case!
Except PETE was actually GOATing in the 1999 Wimby final. Murray in the 2013 final didn't do much different from the 2012 final at all. The difference was clearly the opponent.Well I'm tempted to agree with you but that would be injustice to Murray who's an excellent grass court player and a great player in general. We must be open to the possibility that Djokovic played that way because he couldn't keep with the form that Murray brought to the court that day.
Very much like Agassi in the 1999 Wimbledon final against Sampras. It must be noted that Agassi reached the final playing superb tennis and was given a good chance in the final by many experts. The result- he didn't win a single set! Did he play bad? Not by any stretch of imagination. Sampras played other-worldly grass court tennis and when that happens, nothing you can do about it.
We must give the same benefit to Murray. Djokovic didn't play bad, he just got outplayed.
Yes. That 2 times wimbledon champion is not upto the mark at peak levels .... Murray is NOTHING.
Now don't give foolish arguments like beaten by djokovic in 3 attempts thing, Federer is Djokovic's daddy on Grass, just because he was old and lost some close finals doesnt mean ****.....
Except PETE was actually GOATing in the 1999 Wimby final. Murray in the 2013 final didn't do much different from the 2012 final at all. The difference was clearly the opponent.
He pushed Federer harder at Wimbeldon.
Federer is the best grass player in the modern era and probably open era so it is a big yardstick. Roddick in 04 was on grass was just as dominant as Murray in any Wimby or any grass event in any year.That's hardly a measuring yardstick. This is the first time I'm reading that a 0-time Wimbledon champ is better than a 2 time champ because he pushed another player harder. I'm certain you won't find much backing, if any, for your claim outside of the Federer fan circle.