Search results

Oh I thought we were comparing Murray as a match up for Federer, than Murray as a match up for Nadal. Murray as a match up for Nadal vs Federer as a match up for Nadal. Overall it is hard to say on the "match up" since obviously Federer is a much better player, so for the level of player they...

He beat him at 2008 US Open and 2010 Australian Open very convincingly. For me that is enough to say he is a much tougher opponent for slams than he is for Federer, who as I already said he didn't finally beat until Australia 2013, and that was barely, in Federer's worst year ever until he got...

I am just thinking in slams he is clearly a tougher opponent for Nadal than Federer, not that he is that tough or a bad match up for Nadal, just more than Federer who he was so extremely hopeless against forever in best of 5. It is all relative. Yes his early career success vs Federer outside...

For me it is complicated. First off comparing the Laver and Gonzales era to the Djokovic, Federer, Nadal era is almost impossible. Comparing Laver to Gonzales is even hard. Laver did miss out on a lot of slams due to the Open Era/pro and amateur situation, which everyone harps on. But what...

Actually considering Federer did not lose in a slam to Murray until 2013 (where Federer was horrible, one of his worst years, and Murray still barely won), and I think never did again after that, I would strongly believe he is a tougher match up for Nadal than for Federer in best of 5 anyway.

Fair enough. It would be interesting to see for sure.

Ranking these I go: 1. Hewitt- He definitely is not the most talented or dangerous of this list. Safin and Nastase are far more talented, and Safin and Smith are far more lethal/overpowering at their best. However fact is he was the only one of this list who was a solid #1 for about two whole...

I doubt that considering they literally played in all 3 other slams running from 2008 French-2009 Australia, and Nadal won all 3, on 3 different surfaces. I don't see what then magically changes in the 1 they didn't play. Murray beating Nadal, Federer beating Murray, so Federer beats Nadal...

Some of what you say is interesting, but I don't think that last bolded point is a very good argument since most all time greats, particular GOAT contenders will still give the other trouble even out of their prime and in the others prime. I think we can agree Federer was more "prime" than...

I am not questioning the quality of his WC title which I agreed was an impressive win, so don't mix those in with the 2 Australian Opens. Who did he beat for the 2 Australian Opens only? Who was even in the draw? Yeah exactly.

Wilander actually won in a real slam field though, something Vilas never did on grass. The Australian Open was still a bit depleted in the early 80s but it still had most of the top players and were legit slam fields. The late 70s, both men and women, LOL! Remember Vilas's Australian Open...

Yes one problem I have with giving Roddick much more credit is that he didn't carry his one lethal forehand throughout his career, and lost it for a good chunk of his supposed prime. This is bad for a player who doesn't have a complete game, and relies on a few prominent weapons, to begin with...

Laver's Calendar Grand Slam in the Open Era would already be easily enough to place him over Becker, even if you were looking at just the Open Era. Plus there are 2 or 3 years in the Open Era experts rated him as #1 for the year, while Becker has arguably 1 at most (1989) and even in that...

Yes I loved that story in his book. His book was good for a laugh at many various points. Especialy the gross exagerration of his injury (I do believe he had a minor injury of some sort, and it affected him in this match, but nothing like he potrayed) at the end of the Becker-Agassi 95 US Open...

I honestly can't even imagine Agassi ever beating Lendl at the 90 US Open if they played, never mind the 90 French where his chances would obviously be about 30% as good at that point time as they would be on a hard court (he wasnt even that good a clay courter back then, was mainly a hard...

OK given the context of the era I overstated it (for today it would easily be termed that, but not for back then). I would say somewhat depleted then. I still give him full credit for that victory mind you, but definitely not the 2 Australians, particularly given a realistic assessment of his...

Some interesting opposition to the Becker and Cash thing at Wimbledon 87. Enough people have responded to that there must be a good argument against Becker and for Cash here.

He might be right, but I don't care. That just makes is sweeter for a Zverev hater like myself, and I am not even a Nadal fan. He is a vile brat and hope he never wins a slam. He must hate Alcarez already has a slam and a YE#1, and is much younger than him. Hope it makes him feel like a flop.

That is true. I had forgotten about that.

I would say the 2005 Australian Open final was completely her own fault IMO for giving up after not converting some break chances mid 2nd set even against a non on fire Serena, so while that was a big opportunity, I wouldn't neccessarily credit her with bad luck there, but in each of the 2004...

but his stats would still worsen by playing the 85-92 period correct? And your idea, which I generally approve of, what stat based. That is what I mean. We are agreeing what he was doing in advanced age (for tennis) was super impressive, yet hanging on so long would still worsen his stats...

I see your point but realistically pretty much any player will see diminishing returns well into their 30s, particularly before the last decade where advanced training methods (and probably improved PEDS, lol) have let to unprecedented longevity for both the men and women. So should a player...

Yes there was no reason at all for Djokovic to not win atleast 2 slams in each of 2012, 2013, 2014, the very good but not outstanding years sandwiched between his dominant years. He won only 1 in each of them, even though he went into nearly every slam with a fairly good chance of winning...

That is true. I guess to examine it further, no way do I see Capriati beating Venus if Venus makes the final. Not a chance. I sort of think the 2001 Miami final meant Venus would now never lose a match to Capriati (except just maybe if they were to play on clay), and their ensuing matches...

I wouldn't say the result is a total given, but as I said Becker won all 8 sets on grass he played vs Cash, including the next year at Wimbledon in 1988 when Cash was still playing well. Becker is not a good match up for him. It would have been a huge challenge for him for sure. Not...

True, but Nadal lost only 1 match at RG over a 10 year span. So with that said what are the odds it was hypotheticaly happening twice in the same tournament (unless you really buy Nadal was badly injured, which I never did).

Davenport had absolutely miserable luck in majors after 2000, particularly in 2004-2005 though.

Great one I never would have thought of if someone else did not bring it up, so thanks. I had forgotten that one, but you are probably right. Honestly Bruguera was probably stronger than Muster at that exact point, but it doesn't matter. The match up and psychological edges are so much in...

Hmm interesting. I would consider, but would need some more convincing here I think. Clijsters had beaten Henin 6-4, 6-0 on a similar hard court weeks earlier; which btw is contrasting to other time periods Henin was beating Clijsters in slams, where she was usually winning even their non slam...

That is a good one. I agree it is atleast 90% likely Becker beats Chang in that RG final. Edberg (a far better match up for Chang in general than Becker) honestly should have to, and that final is one of the biggest choke jobs of that period with all the break points and chances he blew, but...