Recent content by Morj

Oh my god, this is so ridiculous because you dont understand what the weak era argument is. Sure Baghdatis had a higher level in one individual match. Sure at times Safin or Nalby played amazing tennis. But the point is that these players, while talented, were really inconsistent. Thats...

Guys come on, compare it to Wimby 2012. Back then Fed was heavily implying even before the tourney began that he was ready to make his move. The way he talked in interviews and such, he fully intended to win that tournament. He was ready to take on Djokovic/Nadal/Murray or whoever he faced (even...

That statement is just so incredibly stupid that it makes me feel dumb having to actually write response. You do realize that all the best slam matches last year featured Djokovic? Do I seriously have to list this for you? I will since apparently you dont watch tennis: 2013: Aussie Open...

This is to all Fed fans: Don't get your hopes up. I'm not being mean-spirited or anything, I'm just saying that based on the way Federer has been talking, he is not (at the moment) prepared to give everything he's got to take out Nadal. I strongly believe that Federer still has it in him...

I guess you're not a fan of exceptional movement, agility, and clutch play under pressure. Not to mention that the best matches in slams tend to be Djokovic matches. (LOL at murray and ferrer being more interesting to watch)

2012, best power struggle at the top, most drama

I mean I personally like the fact that he is a bit more cocky and arrogant than the other top players and fits his position as "king" of tennis, but I'm annoyed that so much more often I see one isolated statement by Nadal or Djokovic being blown up into an entire thread. "Arrogant dirty...

I don't understand why Fed is never considered arrogant even when he's making statements like this. And this isnt an isolated example, he has a thousand quotes that make him sound arrogant. Yet if you listen to the posters here it sounds like Fed's a saint and Nadal/Djokovic are the most...

Good Analysis

2012, that was the year of the Big 4. It was such a big power struggle, with everyone taking turns dominating and each having their time to shine. Lot of drama that year.

Wimbledon has the greatest value, full stop. If you try and argue otherwise then you are wrong, theres not really a debate there. That said, a player with 4 Wimbys is not as good as a player with 1 of each kind. Diversity makes for a more complete resume.

Don't really know what to say to you... you're getting defensive and avoiding my points. I have explained that out of the skills a modern tennis player needs, Djokovic is the most complete because he excels in all categories. Your problem is you're assuming that "more complete" means...

Ok...so what? When any player is "doing really well" they can play better than normal. But you know for a fact that you would not normally call Sampras' backhand a weapon.

Depends. If you say "peers" then technically Fed dominated his age group of weaklings. But if you say "contemporaries" then definitely not, because he couldn't dominate Nadal. Rafa was his primary rival throughout Fed's prime, so Fed did not dominate his main contemporary.

Now we're just arguing in circles. Fed, Nadal, Sampras are all very complete players. But if we're looking purely at modern tennis, the primary skills emphasized are: Serve, Return, Movement, Forehand, Backhand. Djokovic is the only player who is strong in each category. Federer/Nadal/Sampras...