There's a reason for that.WTA suffers of the same baseline grinding sickness, and there is no player there to show them that a more active game style can be used to win.
I guess you missed all the SV that Djokovic did in the final though.
There's a reason for that.WTA suffers of the same baseline grinding sickness, and there is no player there to show them that a more active game style can be used to win.
How is that a good rebuttal? Can't there be an outlier, a first? Especially someone who is so driven to succeed and break records, and someone who is so fanatical about his diet, stretching, etc. I acknowledge that this can't be proven or disproven and there are no foolproof metrics as there may be for sports such as swimming or track.Ok please advise me what player has been as good at 37 as 27
The same game plan brought a lot problems to Nole before. We need to give due credit to Nole's improved volley. Without it, I don't see how he could have out grinded Med.I watched the match too. Guy had no idea what to do on return and other than trying to outlast Djokovic he had no other plan.
I asked you to tell me someone who was better at 37 than 27. And your response was he has adjusted tactically. Look man I respect novak but it’s more than him adjusting tactically. His competition sucks. I could go on and on about athletes in This age range and how they compete with their peers.How is that a good rebuttal? Can't there be an outlier, a first? Especially someone who is so driven to succeed and break records, and someone who is so fanatical about his diet, stretching, etc. I acknowledge that this can't be proven or disproven and there are no foolproof metrics as there may be for sports such as swimming or track.
Obviously in tennis there are ways to compensate for any physical decline that you can't do so easily (far as I know) in, say the 100 m dash (wasn't Usain Bolt an outlier?) or, say, the 200 m freestyle. I don't know enough about times and ages in swimming, but I'm suspecting that Phelps was a bit of an outlier...and that's in a timed sport.
In tennis, you can shorten points by improving your serve, volleying more and better (I guess Novak's reflexes are still pretty good...and Fed and Rafa also shortened points as they got older), hitting more droppers, etc. Novak (since we're discussing him) can also "major in majors" now, and plan his schedule accordingly to peak at the slams, and even peak additionally for the second week of slams. So yes, I don't see much physical decline, and I also see improvements in other areas that compensate for whatever small decline there have been. Again, I don't think that he can, or wants to, win a 6-hour war of attrition, a la A012. And he also picks his spots as far as when to go all out in M1000s and even the YEC. And he's more vulnerable in those. But yes, I think he's essentially the same beast that he's always been at the slams.
And again, does it matter if we haven't seen this level of success in one's 30s in men's tennis before? But even so, wasn't Roger still playing great tennis at WC19, at almost age 38, if not quite what he was? No, Ken Rosewall wasn't as good as before, but without the benefits of modern sports science, and having been playing for far longer than Novak has to this point, he was still winning slams and making finals well up into his mid to late-30s. And in the newish OE with a lot of great players...as an undersized player.
This,Carlos had just turned 20 and playing in only his 4th grass event ever when he beat Novak at Wimbledon. That says more about the talent of Carlos.
As for clay, Novak would probably have 6-7 RG titles if not for Nadal.
Many times Novak played like garbage in majors as far back as 10-15 years ago and still made finals or won them.
I would bet my money on today's Novak to beat the Novak from 2008-2014 and 2016-2017 in many big matches. They would split a lot of matches.
You overrate the young Novak and underestimate today's Novak.
His volleys, net game, serve, and will to win are even better now than years back.
That's not all I responded with, and you know it; I actually gave you a much more thorough answer than your somewhat sarcastic question deserved.I asked you to tell me someone who was better at 37 than 27. And your response was he has adjusted tactically. Look man I respect novak but it’s more than him adjusting tactically. His competition sucks. I could go on and on about athletes in This age range and how they compete with their peers.
Again it’s not merely about novak winning these tournaments. He’s crushing people while doing it. To me that’s a compliment to novak, but it also makes me wonder about the players he is playing. It’s one thing to win or go on a run and do well at this age. It’s another thing to just destroy people day and day out in match after match
Again. You are using examples of guys who did well at older ages. He’s not just doing well. He is crushing people 10-15 years younger than him.That's not all I responded with, and you know it; I actually gave you a much more thorough answer than your somewhat sarcastic question deserved.
This is getting a bit tiresome, as I answered your question from so many angles. But yes, your rebuttal of "his competition sucks" was so much more effective.
So that you can bestow more wisdom on us, please tell us what specific point I made that you disagree with.
Or should we just assume that because we haven't seen this level of success among male tennis players in their 30s before that it all points to terrible competition.
Is Novak not fanatical about his diet, his stretching, etc?
Does he not - more than he ever did when he was younger when accused of "majoring in minors" - gear his schedule around the four slams?
Does he not put less effort now into winning other tournaments? Shortened his schedule some?
Is he not more experienced in prepping for slams, and peaking for the second week of slams?
Is his serve not acknowledged as better than before (generally), as is his volley?
Doesn't he also utilize more drop shots, partly as an acknowledgment that he doesn't want to get into 5-hour battles...And yes, I don't think his endurance is quite the same?
What metrics do you have that he has physically declined so significantly that be couldn't possibly be nearly as good now - at the slams - in consideration of all of this?
With all this, I would say that I don't think he redirects rallies as well as he used to, that his DTL BH is not as great. And again, I don't think he can dominate week in, week out, as he did in 2015. But his FH is arguably just as good, and his serve and volley are a bit better. If he's lost foot speed/agility/flexibility, it's hard to detect.
As for other players succeeding into their mid (even late) 30s, I mentioned the great Ken Rosewall, who still holds the record (if I'm not mistaken) for the oldest "slam" winner. And this was an undersized guy without benefits of modern science who logged huge mileage as an amateur and barnstorming pro. And I mentioned Roger, who while not as great as before, still played a heckuva Wimby19, almost two years older than Novak is now. Among other great efforts...as you know, his run from AO17 thru Sunshine Double thru Wimby was an amazing run of tennis bordering on age 36.
Again, this is getting quite tedious.Again. You are using examples of guys who did well at older ages. He’s not just doing well. He is crushing people 10-15 years younger than him
ehh, its def a weak generation. but looking at ELO ratings, the top 10 and top 5 are very comparable and somewhat higher in most years compared to 2000-2007.Weakest generation of all time.
I don't need no ELO rating to work out that this is the weakest generation of all time. Players of 2000 gen would thrash this gen easily.ehh, its def a weak generation. but looking at ELO ratings, the top 10 and top 5 are very comparable and somewhat higher in most years compared to 2000-2007.
It's logical to ignore how it actually worked in practice in favour of whatever it is you're doing? OK agreee to disagree there lol.It's really the obvious way to do this and it's baffling that you don't agree. It's clearly the most logical way to look at this. Why would you only look in one direction there's no possible justification for that I can see?
When did I say that lol? What is this nonsense? You're so desperate to pin me as crazy or an extremist that you say the wildest things.
But we do know seeing as he was 8-8 in slam finals when he was 28.
I do feel a general shift towards shorthand positions, with efficiency sought out of sheer exasperation. 'MUG' has a fair amount of explanatory power in just three characters, and even just flippant laughter might convey all that's needed for current tennistic affairs.It's nice that Raul remains gentlemanly - I appreciate- but it's not like metsmate insulted his person, only dismissed the post. And frankly every possible argument has been rehashed and regurgitated many times by now, to the point that it's no wonder we're just tired of djokophilic arguments... or that they are tired of the opposite except only one set is correct.
Thing is, ELO is all relative to the field, but that's the very thing we're evaluating. We'd need an approach that transcends the intra-generational fuzz and the only sort of thing that comes to mind is e.g. seeing a player return serve from New Jersey.ehh, its def a weak generation. but looking at ELO ratings, the top 10 and top 5 are very comparable and somewhat higher in most years compared to 2000-2007.
Because he only started to consistently be dominant once he reached that age.An honest question. Why do you look at this stat till he turned 28?
Then you know Med is a hugely limited player if even Djokovic can trouble him with his net play.The same game plan brought a lot problems to Nole before. We need to give due credit to Nole's improved volley. Without it, I don't see how he could have out grinded Med.
This. Absolutely hilarious when Nole fans bring up "but... but... ELO!"I don't need no ELO rating to work out that this is the weakest generation of all time. Players of 2000 gen would thrash this gen easily.
I am excluding Alcaraz from my reply since he is obviously better than the other players.Wimbledon 2023, followed closely by (M1000) Cincinnati. What else could you want from two competitors? (unless I'm missing the gist of your reply here.)
It was still only 1 close set. Yes, he could've made it more of a contest, but he didn't, so I can't give him brownie points for could've/should've/would'veRoddick didn't have a BP in either of the 7-5 sets and Med genuinely wrestled over the level in the 2nd and the 09 match was NID the whole time. Med goes down the line on SP and it's a genuine contest AO 09 was never close to being a contest.
Because he played an old Djokovic while being a decade younger. Still got wrecked in 2 slam finals. Way more is an exaggeration especially when they faced vastly different competition.No it's not. I checked he's won more sets vs Djokovic in 15 matches than Roddick did vs Fed in 24. He also has more wins in 15 matches of course. That is vastly more success.
The numbers are displayed bare-bones, there's nothing open to interpretation. Only 2 slams won by that entire group.Sure and the stats are open to interpretation if it was just stats what would we have to talk about. Djokovic goat by miles if we're doing the wikipedia game.
Against a vastly better player not mid 30's Fed.So were Roddick and Hewitt for that matter.
I already mentioned USO 2019. 2021 we all know why that happened.Ok and Med has USO 19/21
Djokovic just played his C game which was enough back then since Med was still a relative nobody.and AO 19.
Are you talking about Alcaraz? Sure, but so does Zverev, it only proves that Carlos played a bad match.I can list 3 solid matches too and his career's still going. And Med has a convincing slam win over an ATG. Roddick's best win is a coinflip match over 09 Murray.
He performed better against prime Fed than Med against old Djokodal. Med does not have a signature match vs a prime ATG.Roddick did face superior competition and he performed worse. Med faced worse competition and performed better. Exactly what you would expect if they're of a similar calibre.
It's not cherry-picking. Why would Djokovic bring his A game against a relative nobody in the 4R of a slam?More cherrypicking
It's an insult to those guys to compare them to the 90's born. They're close to Murray/Stan level than 90's bornNot any better really.
But Federer being born in that decade changes things a lot as opposed to Med being the best the 1989-2002 group has to offer.Point remains the same distance between Fed and closest ATGs is the same as Djokovic's (plus or minus a year or so)
And Djokovic has benefitted much more from that than Federer.This is just incredibly straightforward Fed had two generations without ATGs his and the one before. Djokovic also had two the two following him.
lol ur just shifiting the goalposts because I'm right and you painted yourself into a corner. You're argument wasn't that Djokovic had a period with no ATGs so why would that be what I responded to. Nadal was relevant until 22 and Alcaraz started being relevant in 22 boom Djokovic has always had ATG competition. Point is they were similarly distanced from ATGs.It's logical to ignore how it actually worked in practice in favour of whatever it is you're doing? OK agreee to disagree there lol.
Well you said Federer enjoyed a period with no ATG's yes? How long was that period? I wouldn't use that phrasing myself as Federer had Agasssi/Nadal, Djokovic has had Nadal as well - so neither had a period with actual 0 ATG's.
Yeah sure still a closer match. Not gonna argue about this anymore it's a dumb argument who cares.It was still only 1 close set. Yes, he could've made it more of a contest, but he didn't, so I can't give him brownie points for could've/should've/would've
Because he played an old Djokovic while being a decade younger. Still got wrecked in 2 slam finals. Way more is an exaggeration especially when they faced vastly different competition.
The numbers are displayed bare-bones, there's nothing open to interpretation. Only 2 slams won by that entire group.
Against a vastly better player not mid 30's Fed.
I already mentioned USO 2019. 2021 we all know why that happened.
Djokovic just played his C game which was enough back then since Med was still a relative nobody.
Are you talking about Alcaraz? Sure, but so does Zverev, it only proves that Carlos played a bad match.
He performed better against prime Fed than Med against old Djokodal. Med does not have a signature match vs a prime ATG.
It's not cherry-picking. Why would Djokovic bring his A game against a relative nobody in the 4R of a slam?
NopeAnd Djokovic has benefitted much more from that than Federer.
I was skimming through a past thread and caught this exact same argument near word for word from you back in 2021 a couple timesYeah sure still a closer match. Not gonna argue about this anymore it's a dumb argument who cares.
No it's not it's a fact. He has been far more successful objectively. Yes that has a lot to do with Novak's age but the fact that you can't admit something that's just factually accurate shows how hopelessly biased you are about this whole thing.
Yep true. I can also say Fed gen only one won slam after Fed showed up and were completely displaced by teenage Djo, Ned, and Murray. I can say Oldassi 8 matches vs Fed 0-8 5 whole sets and Roddick 3-21 vs Federer 14 sets won in total. I can say Hewitt from 04-09 was 0-14 with 5 sets won. I can say Safin was 1-7 vs prime Federer only 2 matches where he takes a set. I can say that factually this level of competition is pretty much the same as what Dimitrov, Nishikori, and Raonic provided to Djokovic during his prime and probably even less that Berdych, Cilic, Tsonga, and Ferrer did. Numbers are displayed bare bones. No interpretation necessary.
Don't think Carlos played a bad match but agree to disagree. Roddick doesn't have a win that good period.
He objectively did not. You define Fed's prime as 04-10 AO. Roddick literally won 0 matches in that period. By your definition Med doesn't even have a match against a prime ATG so how could he have a signature one lol.
Right so 4R AO 13 was irrelevant and Djokovic wasn't trying. Good to know. Man these are some good arguments.
Nope
What goalposts have I moved? Pretty sure that Mike's initial point would have been about younger ATG's so if anyone moved goalposts it would be you.lol ur just shifiting the goalposts because I'm right and you painted yourself into a corner. You're argument wasn't that Djokovic had a period with no ATGs so why would that be what I responded to. Nadal was relevant until 22 and Alcaraz started being relevant in 22 boom Djokovic has always had ATG competition. Point is they were similarly distanced from ATGs.
If you want to make it about who actually faced ATGs more it's Djokovic. That we can just look up and know to be true. I don't even know what your point is at this point. I don't know if you have one.
Pointing out that looking only in one direction for ATGs (the direction that favors your argument) is not goalpost shifting it's showing a more complete picture to a biased argument. How that is goalpost shifting in your mind is beyond me.What goalposts have I moved? Pretty sure that Mike's initial point would have been about younger ATG's so if anyone moved goalposts it would be you.
If you want to count facing crap'dal in 2015-2016 as facing more ATG's then be my guest. I'm sure that counts for more than the 11 meetings with Agaasi etc...lol. Though I wasn't suggesting we count anyway.
The fact is despite having a same age peer ATG in Nadal, Djokovic has has a rather different career trajectory to him and Djokodal have only sporadically been in form at the same time the past 6 years. The lack of a credible young rival has obviously helped Djokovic (and Nadal) immensely. I do agree Federer not having a late 20's ATG in his rise helped him but considering his own form at the time versus Djokovic's in 2018+ I know who was helped more...
Anyway no point arguing, anyone who can't admit that the last 6 years have more than balanced out any perceived weakness in Federer's early career isn't worth engaging with.
Because the argument is focused on 2018 to present and the super strong field when Djokovic came up isn't relevant to that. No one is claiming that Djokovic inflated his stats in the earlier period.Pointing out that looking only in one direction for ATGs (the direction that favors your argument) is not goalpost shifting it's showing a more complete picture to a biased argument. How that is goalpost shifting in your mind is beyond me.
Well unless Djokovic faced Nadal 22 times in 15-16 he's alright lol. Let's also pretend Fed never faced any ATGs when they were crap either. What are these arguments this is getting so silly.
Balanced out is a verbiage I'm fine with. Benefitted much more I think is pretty clearly wrong.
So dishonest.Fun fact Murray has as many wins vs Fed from 04-07 aged 16-19 as Hewitt, Safin, Roddick, Agassi, and JCF combined #strongestera #somuchbetterthan90sgen
I guess USO 04 QF and AO 05 SF especially bear a lot I guess I think in real life and not hypothetically which could be a different story would have to still say Nalbandian.Andre >>>
Safin >>>
That was a troll but expanding the scope doesn't help at all. Add in 08 and 09 and Murray has like 7x their combined wins.So dishonest.
33-42 year old Hewitt has more wins over Federer from 2014-2023 than Murray does. What it tells but us?
Let's skip over multiple injuries etc...so yeah dishonest againThat was a troll but expanding the scope doesn't help at all. Add in 08 and 09 and Murray has like 7x their combined wins.
Difference is that is New Balls Gen at their peak ages that you defend as strong competition and they all played Federer tons of times way more times than Murray did in that period. Murray never played Fed after 2015. It's not even close to the same. My troll argument is way more valid lol.
Fed would have got Murray at the AO in 2016Murray actually got whopped by Fed in 15 on the 2 fast surfaces events giving the impression Fed owned Murray at that stage completely. Murray would have got him on clay and at AO but it just didn't happen in that period.
We have a sample of 2 matches of Fedberg vs Murray 2.0 and they're at Fed's 2 favorite events one in which Fed had perhaps his best serving day of his entire career and the other is the event that Fed perhaps played the best of any event during Edberg's tenure so pretty tough to extrapolate off of that.Murray actually got whopped by Fed in 15 on the 2 fast surfaces events giving the impression Fed owned Murray at that stage completely. Murray would have got him on clay and at AO but it just didn't happen in that period.
Already admitted it was a troll. Still pretty crazy that it's true though.Let's skip over multiple injuries etc...so yeah dishonest again
Nalbandian, Canas, Voldandri, Fish, Blake, Karlovic etc...all scored wins over Fed in that expanded period and are of his generation. So perhaps you want to adjust that 7x figure you gave Nevermind that Ferrero, Hewitt and Roddick all scored wins over Fed post Wimby 2003 anyway.
I don't think Murray would have enjoyed playing Federer after 2015 outside of the injured stretch in 2016...
It would be true if you said Hrbaty as well. I guess he's better than the Newballs Gen too?Already admitted it was a troll. Still pretty crazy that it's true though.
Wait so you mean to say an entire generation of players might have as many wins or more as 1 guy. Wow that's crazy.
Yeah I imagine Murray with a metal hip would've struggled to beat Federer you got me there.
calm down broThe disgusting djokotаrdism on display from certain deplorables is truly sickening. Not a shred of decency in these excuses of human beings, sad!
To me it's crazy how the Next Gen are more useless than ever and can't even make it competitive against Novak anymore.
Lmao man. In Federer's worst year in 2013, it still took Murray 5 sets to overcome Federer at AO. But yeah sure, Murray would have got him lol.Murray actually got whopped by Fed in 15 on the 2 fast surfaces events giving the impression Fed owned Murray at that stage completely. Murray would have got him on clay and at AO but it just didn't happen in that period.
guy. we are on a tennis forum out of boredom. These are tennis players who we are defending that are worth like 500 million to 1 billion dollars. Fed or nadal does not care. and Novak probably does care a bit but thats cause he is nuts like Michael Jordan or Tom BradyThe disgusting djokotаrdism on display from certain deplorables is truly sickening. Not a shred of decency in these excuses of human beings, sad!
My focus here is less on Murray and more on the false idea that Newballs Gen were these legitimate challengers to Federer in a way that the last generations of challengers were not for Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). The rhetoric around this stuff is ridiculous. Guys like Nishikori and Ferrer are literal punchlines 2-5000 and the like and New Balls are these amazing players to be revered. Nishikori actually won a slam match vs Djokovic and Ferrer vs Federer is like a historic meme matchup and yet he still took more sets off Fed in their 17 matches than Hewitt did in the 15 matches that took place during Fed's prime. The amount of disrespect the second and third tier players of the 2010s and 20s get from you guys is terrible and honestly it's completely poisoned the discourse of this site. Every thread every match thread is just filled with moaning about how awful every player and match is it's honestly sad. You read the stuff on here and you would think there hasn't been a single good tennis match in years and that basically no one on here even enjoys watching tennis.It would be true if you said Hrbaty as well. I guess he's better than the Newballs Gen too?
I'll try and steer us back to arguing in good faith here...the fact is Federer's overall consistency dipped in 2007 and a lot of players that were winless against him got some results after that. His intensity and shot tolerance dipped in non slam events. Federer in the later rounds of events in 2004-2006 was a different beast. Its like throwing shade on Nadal for getting beaten like a drum in 2011 because Tommy Haas beat Djokovic in Miami of 2013...
That's not to say Murray isn't better than those guys, but it's not because he beat Federer in Dubai of 2008 etc...
You talk of poisoning the discourse but there's a not too small part of your fanbase who's posts this year can be summarised as "bow down and worship". So I don't think we'll see eye to eye here lol.My focus here is less on Murray and more on the false idea that Newballs Gen were these legitimate challengers to Federer in a way that the last generations of challengers were not for Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). The rhetoric around this stuff is ridiculous. Guys like Nishikori and Ferrer are literal punchlines 2-5000 and the like and New Balls are these amazing players to be revered. Nishikori actually won a slam match vs Djokovic and Ferrer vs Federer is like a historic meme matchup and yet he still took more sets off Fed in their 17 matches than Hewitt did in the 15 matches that took place during Fed's prime. The amount of disrespect the second and third tier players of the 2010s and 20s get from you guys is terrible and honestly it's completely poisoned the discourse of this site. Every thread every match thread is just filled with moaning about how awful every player and match is it's honestly sad. You read the stuff on here and you would think there hasn't been a single good tennis match in years and that basically no one on here even enjoys watching tennis.
This is all true but Murray did get his win 06 fwiw lol. I also think Federer's dip in consistency also had something to do with better competition particularly on HCs but whatever.
Fair enough
Ok I don't think I'm part of that problem. Maybe you'd disagree I'd be surprised but I've been surprised before. I do think you're a part of the problem I described. You can make a difference in making that better.You talk of poisoning the discourse but there's a not too small part of your fanbase who's posts this year can be summarised as "bow down and worship". So I don't think we'll see eye to eye here lol.
Newballs were by and large not legitimate challengers to Fed but then Fed was in that period far and away better than anyone we've had since middle 2016 so it's all relative no? If Fed was a slightly worse player he probably goes five with Hewitt twice in slams for example. IMO the likes of Tsitsipas, Med and Zverev are clearly inferior players to the Newballs guys. That's not to say that the Newballs guys didn't throw in stinkers and play poorly on the big stages at times, I just don't see anyone in this recent generation reaching the heights some of them did in big slam matches and I think on aggregate they'd be faring better against old Djokodal and not going down in straights like bunny's to 36 year old Djokovic.
Fed was knackered after Toronto tbf...
Your argument about Fed's consistency dipping due to competition is easily falsifiable unless you think the guys from Fed's own generation who also started scoring wins got better, even post hip surgery Hewitt got two wins over Fed in 2010 and 2014...I also think it's unlikey the standard of tennis jumped that much in just a single year or year and a half.
You think Fed would have still won even on clay and at AO in 15? Not impossible just asking though.Lmao man. In Federer's worst year in 2013, it still took Murray 5 sets to overcome Federer at AO. But yeah sure, Murray would have got him lol.
You're not and I wasn't trying to imply you were. I'm shocked you think I'm part of the problem I have gone through phases where although I do think this is a hideously weak era, I've tried not to say it too much - at least after a slam win so that you guys (or Nadal fans) can enjoy the win a bit. But I don't always have patience and I can't pretend that my perception of this as an "inferior product" and Djokovic's piling up of wins in the era hasn't made me salty because it has lol.Ok I don't think I'm part of that problem. Maybe you'd disagree I'd be surprised but I've been surprised before. I do think you're a part of the problem I described. You can make a difference in making that better.
Yeah I don't really find any of this objectionable. I think the New Balls guys are greater than the vast majority of the second and third tier guys of the last 15 years. That being said I still think the biggest difference between them and the little 4, Lost Gen, and Next Gen is the early 00s period to pile achievements in and that while they may fare better against old Djokodal it would not be in any meaningful way. They'd still be 1 and 2 in the world and they'd still win basically everything they won.
Well I think it's both. Fed didn't have the same level tournament in tournament out and the competition got better that's what I was saying. They were compounding factors.
I had no idea Ferrer got more sets in those periods you selected. Doesn't feel like it weirdly.My focus here is less on Murray and more on the false idea that Newballs Gen were these legitimate challengers to Federer in a way that the last generations of challengers were not for Djokovic (and to a lesser extent Nadal). The rhetoric around this stuff is ridiculous. Guys like Nishikori and Ferrer are literal punchlines 2-5000 and the like and New Balls are these amazing players to be revered. Nishikori actually won a slam match vs Djokovic and Ferrer vs Federer is like a historic meme matchup and yet he still took more sets off Fed in their 17 matches than Hewitt did in the 15 matches that took place during Fed's prime. The amount of disrespect the second and third tier players of the 2010s and 20s get from you guys is terrible and honestly it's completely poisoned the discourse of this site. Every thread every match thread is just filled with moaning about how awful every player and match is it's honestly sad. You read the stuff on here and you would think there hasn't been a single good tennis match in years and that basically no one on here even enjoys watching tennis.
This is all true but Murray did get his win 06 fwiw lol. I also think Federer's dip in consistency also had something to do with better competition particularly on HCs but whatever.
Fair enough