2003-2007

[Deleted member 307496]

Why 2010? To make things convenient for you and suit your agenda?

Federer showed no signs of appreciable decline until 2012 even from his 2008 form, if we look at the facts vs the whole field (that you claim to be so keen on doing):

Winning percentage (actually goes UP in 2011/12)

08: 81%
09: 84%
10: 83%
11: 84%
12: 86%

Titles won (again goes UP in 2012)

08: 4
09: 4
10: 5
11: 4
12: 6

Final Reached (highest AGAIN in 2012)

08: 8
09: 7
10: 9
11: 6
12: 10

Highest Ranking (Higher in 2012 than in 2010)

08: 1
09: 1
10: 2
11: 2
12: 1

Considering his body of work across ALL areas indicates no appreciable decline from 08 to 12 (and actually shows INCREASES in most areas in 2012 vs 2008), I think the evidence is clear enough to show that Federer did not have any sort of decline in that window whatsoever and his decline actually came in 2013 when he began to drop heavy in every metric.

More skewed statistics from the author of the "Djokovic: The First Man to Ascend to the Peak" novel of nonsensical babble.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

^^^I'm surprised you haven't commented on Spicy's post yet Saby. :smile:

Thanks for reminding me.

 

[Djokovic2011]

What's so skewed about them Saby? They're all facts aren't they?

 

[eldanger25]

Roger's 2012 first half was an aberration , not 2010-11.

2010 AO was the last time Fed played well.

He was in very good form in fall 2011 as well - you might say that was opportunistic, but he was certainly playing at a higher level than most everyone else on tour the last two months of the 2011 season (something which is generally overshadowed by Djokovic's amazing first 9 months of 2011).

I understand that results in some way dictate the "playing well" or "prime" question, but I think there's a hindsight bias danger in that kind of thinking. I can't think of anybody who was "post-prime" and also the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, as Fed was for part of 2012. Agassi 2003? Connors 1983? Lendl 1990? Sampras 2000? All those guys won slams and MS1000s that year, like Fed did in 2012, and had great results in following seasons when they were more clearly "post-prime."

I just don't see it - and certainly not if Fed is somehow the only player in Open Era history to be "post-prime" and number 1 in the world.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

What's so skewed about them Saby? They're all facts aren't they?

Not when the highest ranking at the end of the year is used as the benchmark. I doubt SpicyCurry even mentioned the fact that Federer nearly dropped out of the top 4 in 2011 because that would make his "facts" look terrible. Or the fact that Federer, inside and outside of majors, after the 2010 AO had some of his worst results (at that point) since 2002.

 

[drm025]

He was in very good form in fall 2011 as well - you might say that was opportunistic, but he was certainly playing at a higher level than most everyone else on tour the last two months of the 2011 season (something which is generally overshadowed by Djokovic's amazing first 9 months of 2011).

I understand that results in some way dictate the "playing well" or "prime" question, but I think there's a hindsight bias danger in that kind of thinking. I can't think of anybody who was "post-prime" and also the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, as Fed was for part of 2012. Agassi 2003? Connors 1983? Lendl 1990? Sampras 2000? All those guys won slams and MS1000s that year, like Fed did in 2012, and had great results in following seasons when they were more clearly "post-prime."

I just don't see it - and certainly not if Fed is somehow the only player in Open Era history to be "post-prime" and number 1 in the world.

Very reasonable post.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Not when the highest ranking at the end of the year is used as the benchmark. I doubt SpicyCurry even mentioned the fact that Federer nearly dropped out of the top 4 in 2011 because that would make his "facts" look terrible. Or the fact that Federer, inside and outside of majors, after the 2010 AO had some of his worst results (at that point) since 2002.

Haha be honest Saby, you just hate the thought of Novak being ahead of Federer in any metric or statistic! :wink:

 

[tennisaddict]

He was in very good form in fall 2011 as well - you might say that was opportunistic, but he was certainly playing at a higher level than most everyone else on tour the last two months of the 2011 season (something which is generally overshadowed by Djokovic's amazing first 9 months of 2011).

I understand that results in some way dictate the "playing well" or "prime" question, but I think there's a hindsight bias danger in that kind of thinking. I can't think of anybody who was "post-prime" and also the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, as Fed was for part of 2012. Agassi 2003? Connors 1983? Lendl 1990? Sampras 2000? All those guys won slams and MS1000s that year, like Fed did in 2012, and had great results in following seasons when they were more clearly "post-prime."

I just don't see it - and certainly not if Fed is somehow the only player in Open Era history to be "post-prime" and number 1 in the world.

And Fed may just end up this year at Number 1 (or could have if not for a match or two) and you will still claim that he is at his peak ?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Haha be honest Saby, you just hate the thought of Novak being ahead of Federer in any metric or statistic! :wink:

I don't mind people saying Nadal is better than Federer because there actually is grounds for that - but when people start trying to say Djokovic is better than both because he dominated Nadal in a singular year.. it starts to get crazy. Especially when the only people trying to say this are fans of Djokovic (not saying you are).

 

[tennisaddict]

He was in very good form in fall 2011 as well - you might say that was opportunistic, but he was certainly playing at a higher level than most everyone else on tour the last two months of the 2011 season (something which is generally overshadowed by Djokovic's amazing first 9 months of 2011).

I understand that results in some way dictate the "playing well" or "prime" question, but I think there's a hindsight bias danger in that kind of thinking. I can't think of anybody who was "post-prime" and also the #1 ranked tennis player in the world, as Fed was for part of 2012. Agassi 2003? Connors 1983? Lendl 1990? Sampras 2000? All those guys won slams and MS1000s that year, like Fed did in 2012, and had great results in following seasons when they were more clearly "post-prime."

I just don't see it - and certainly not if Fed is somehow the only player in Open Era history to be "post-prime" and number 1 in the world.

In 2010 , Fed lost to Melzer, Gulbis, Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Davydenko - most of them on non clay - he had barely lost to these players till then .

If this is not proof, not sure what else you would need.

 

[eldanger25]

And Fed may just end up this year at Number 1 (or could have if not for a match or two) and you will still claim that he is at his peak ?

Nope, not peak - I think "peak" and "prime" are two different concepts. I see "prime" as roughly from the player's first slam final to last (or slam title to last, depending), and "peak" as their best stretch of dominance, top-level play, etc. - whatever you want to call it. For Fed, "peak" would be YEC 2003 - YEC 2007 (I think his 2007 is a little underrated in "peak" discussions because he quite unsurprisingly lost a little motivation at the tour level, though if you look at his GS performances that year they're as impressive as any - I think he only lost 3-4 sets total to players not named Nadal across all four majors in 2007 - not to mention he broke Nadal's clay court winning streak at Hamburg and had his best year in their rivalry).

 

[Djokovic2011]

I don't mind people saying Nadal is better than Federer because there actually is grounds for that - but when people start trying to say Djokovic is better than both because he dominated Nadal in a singular year.. it starts to get crazy. Especially when the only people trying to say this are fans of Djokovic (not saying you are).

I don't think it's just 2011 that Djokovic fans focus on though. He's been a great player since 2007 really and has also had many big wins over Federer and Nadal outside of his peak year.

 

[AssaultJoker]

In 2010 , Fed lost to Melzer, Gulbis, Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Davydenko - most of them on non clay - he had barely lost to these players till then .

If this is not proof, not sure what else you would need.

Because they matured. Fed can't always get lucky with weak era:lol:

 

[eldanger25]

In 2010 , Fed lost to Melzer, Gulbis, Baghdatis, Tsonga, Berdych, Davydenko - most of them on non clay - he had barely lost to these players till then .

If this is not proof, not sure what else you would need.

When would you say Fed's peak started and ended, and his prime started and ended? And what would you call fall 2011 - summer 2012, when he won big titles on all surfaces, won the YEC and Wimbledon, won the silver medal at the Olympics, beat Nadal two out of three times, including once on outdoor HCs at IW, and bageled Djokovic at Cincy?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

When would you say Fed's peak started and ended, and his prime started and ended? And what would you call fall 2011 - summer 2012, when he won big titles on all surfaces, won the YEC and Wimbledon, won the silver medal at the Olympics, beat Nadal two out of three times, including once on outdoor HCs at IW, and bageled Djokovic at Cincy?

A last hurrah.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I don't think it's just 2011 that Djokovic fans focus on though. He's been a great player since 2007 really and has also had many big wins over Federer and Nadal outside of his peak year.

Like I've said in another thread, I noticed as early as the 2007 AO that Djokovic was going to be a great player. I agree that he is certainly up there, but I don't know about better than the Federer & Nadal duo.

 

[tennisaddict]

Nope, not peak - I think "peak" and "prime" are two different concepts. I see "prime" as roughly from the player's first slam final to last (or slam title to last, depending), and "peak" as their best stretch of dominance, top-level play, etc. - whatever you want to call it. For Fed, "peak" would be YEC 2003 - YEC 2007 (I think his 2007 is a little underrated in "peak" discussions because he quite unsurprisingly lost a little motivation at the tour level, though if you look at his GS performances that year they're as impressive as any - I think he only lost 3-4 sets total to players not named Nadal across all four majors in 2007 - not to mention he broke Nadal's clay court winning streak at Hamburg and had his best year in their rivalry).

That is a totally flawed thought. I wont comment more.

 

[Djokovic2011]

A last hurrah.

That was some hurrah! :shock:

 

[eldanger25]

That is a totally flawed thought. I wont comment more.

Fair enough - appreciate the feedback, and thanks for the restraint. Good night and good luck.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

That was some hurrah! :shock:

Yes, it was, but it is clear to me that is what it is because Federer's form dipped after that Cincinatti beat-down and the next season (2013) he had some of his worst results ever.

 

[eldanger25]

That was some hurrah! :shock:

Indeed. But let's call all this for what it is - an indirect way to try and devalue Nadal's 2010 and Djokovic's 2011.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Indeed. But let's call all this for what it is - an indirect way to try and devalue Nadal's 2010 and Djokovic's 2011.

And how am I doing that by saying that Federer's last hurrah was from 2011-2012? How in the world am I even devaluing either season when Djokovic and Nadal beat Federer fair and square in 2010 and 2011? Please explain this to me; SpicyCurry's main minion.

 

[eldanger25]

And how am I doing that by saying that Federer's last hurrah was from 2011-2012? How in the world am I even devaluing either season when Djokovic and Nadal beat Federer fair and square in 2010 and 2011? Please explain this to me; SpicyCurry's main minion.

I was referring to my back-and-forth with tennisaddict - wasn't paying much attention to what you were saying. My mistake.

That said, I've never been called a "minion" before, let alone a "main minion" - kind of an exciting moment in a way. Lord knows SpicyCurry and I disagree about several things (including Murray v. Hewitt, for instance - I think Hewitt's clearly had a greater career). We agree about this issue though, for sure.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I was referring to my back-and-forth with tennisaddict - wasn't paying much attention to what you were saying. My mistake.

That said, I've never been called a "minion" before, let alone a "main minion" - kind of an exciting moment in a way. Lord knows SpicyCurry and I disagree about several things (including Murray v. Hewitt, for instance - I think Hewitt's clearly had a greater career). We agree about this issue though, for sure.

It was in reference to SpicyCurry trashing my opinions and views while mentioning you as a prophetic poster. It was not intended as an insult if that is the way you took it.

I believe Murray and Hewitt are equal players by the way.

 

[tennisaddict]

When would you say Fed's peak started and ended, and his prime started and ended? And what would you call fall 2011 - summer 2012, when he won big titles on all surfaces, won the YEC and Wimbledon, won the silver medal at the Olympics, beat Nadal two out of three times, including once on outdoor HCs at IW, and bageled Djokovic at Cincy?

Fed's peak ended in 2007.

Once Fed started losing in 2008 AO due to Mono / sickness / loss of form and got spanked the 2008 FO, he was not the same player. The 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO made it worse.

Federer was fortunate not to face Nadal at 2009 FO and barely beat Roddick at Wimb 2009. He carried the momentum till 2010 AO when another big dip of form of started.

Fed's rise from late 2011 fall coincided with Novak's burn out . He kept winning the masters and 500 tournaments. Again Isner beat Novak at IW 2012 and on blue clay in Madrid, every one fell out and Fed made use of that opportunity.

Federer , on any day, is strong at Wimbledon. He played his best there and fully deserved that title. But if the other players played to their peak level, he was not getting all those masters titles that year and not getting back to Number 1.

So, please stop with this thing of Fed's prime going on for eternity . Should Fed have won USO 2014 , I am pretty sure folks would have said 2013 was a blip and Fed made Wimb 2014 final and USO 2014 and 2014 should still be considered as his peak / prime.

 

[eldanger25]

It was in reference to SpicyCurry trashing my opinions and views while mentioning you as a prophetic poster. It was not intended as an insult if that is the way you took it.

I believe Murray and Hewitt are equal players by the way.

I'd feel that way if Hewitt had just one YE #1. But two versus zero in that metric is compelling for me - Hewitt being able to stand on any hotel balcony on any continent on both December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2002, and look out at his kingdom as the best of the best is decisive in that comparison.

 

[Djokovic2011]

It was in reference to SpicyCurry trashing my opinions and views while mentioning you as a prophetic poster. It was not intended as an insult if that is the way you took it.

I believe Murray and Hewitt are equal players by the way.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I'd feel that way if Hewitt had just one YE #1. But two versus zero in that metric is compelling for me - Hewitt being able to stand on any hotel balcony on any continent on both December 31, 2001 and December 31, 2002, and look out at his kingdom as the best of the best is decisive in that comparison.

I believe if Hewitt competed in the same era as Murray though, he'd also only be a No. 2 player.

 

[eldanger25]

Fed's peak ended in 2007.

Once Fed started losing in 2008 AO due to Mono / sickness / loss of form and got spanked the 2008 FO, he was not the same player. The 2008 Wimbledon and 2009 AO made it worse.

Federer was fortunate not to face Nadal at 2009 FO and barely beat Roddick at Wimb 2009. He carried the momentum till 2010 AO when another big dip of form of started.

Fed's rise from late 2011 fall coincided with Novak's burn out . He kept winning the masters and 500 tournaments. Again Isner beat Novak at IW 2012 and on blue clay in Madrid, every one fell out and Fed made use of that opportunity.

Federer , on any day, is strong at Wimbledon. He played his best there and fully deserved that title. But if the other players played to their peak level, he was not getting all those masters titles that year and not getting back to Number 1.

So, please stop with this thing of Fed's prime going on for eternity . Should Fed have won USO 2014 , I am pretty sure folks would have said 2013 was a blip and Fed made Wimb 2014 final and USO 2014 and 2014 should still be considered as his peak / prime.

Thanks for the serious response - that is a valid point of view.

I consider Fed's "prime" to be from 2003-2012, and his peak from 2004-07, roughly. I don't think his "prime" extends to 2014 even with the Wimbledon final - his 2013 was a clear end point in that respect.

A ten year prime is not unprecedented. Connors's prime was 1974 to either 1983 or 1984, depending (I say 1984). Lendl's from 1981-1990 or 1991 (I say 1991). Agassi from 1990-2003; Sampras somewhere b/w 1990-2002; etc.

I consider a longer prime to be a sign of greatness, by the way. For Federer to have built Borg-like levels of peak play, and be well on his way to Connors-like levels of longevity, is one of his best arguments for "best of all time," to the extent that title exists.

 

[Chico]

It was in reference to SpicyCurry trashing my opinions and views while mentioning you as a prophetic poster. It was not intended as an insult if that is the way you took it.

I believe Murray and Hewitt are equal players by the way.

 

[tennisaddict]

Thanks for the serious response - that is a valid point of view.

I consider Fed's "prime" to be from 2003-2012, and his peak from 2004-07, roughly. I don't think his "prime" extends to 2014 even with the Wimbledon final - his 2013 was a clear end point in that respect.

A ten year prime is not unprecedented. Connors's prime was 1974 to either 1983 or 1984, depending (I say 1984). Lendl's from 1981-1990 or 1991 (I say 1991). Agassi from 1990-2003; Sampras somewhere b/w 1990-2002; etc.

I consider a longer prime to be a sign of greatness, by the way. For Federer to have built Borg-like levels of peak play, and be well on his way to Connors-like levels of longevity, is one of his best arguments for "best of all time," to the extent that title exists.

Ultimately the terms 'prime' , 'peak' are semantics and what history would remember are titles, longevity, consistency, variety of titles, elegance , fair play and competitive matches.

To Fed's credit, even after AO 2010, he has given a handful of beautiful matches to remember ( USO SF 2010, USO SF 2011, FO SF 2011, Wimb SF 2013, Wimb F 2012 , Wimb F 2014, etc) and is still staying relevant on the tour.

As a fan, you cannot be more happier.

 

[SoBad]

This is Roger's competition during ''golden era of tennis 2003-2007'' - no words, badass list...

This will be SoBad's favorite thread come toast time in Grozny~!~:lol:

Let’s start putting together some bullet points then, shall we:

 guys like Baghdatis (amateur journeyman 75lbs overweight to boot) and Gonzalez (forehand-only clay specialist) are all over slam finals
 bald nobody grandpa Ljubicic sitting at ATP #3 like a brooding ostrich chick
 Robby Ginepri (!!) makes USO semis a couple of weeks after getting blown out in the quarters of an Atlanta 4.5 tournament
 claycourt journeyman Massu travels to Athens and walks out with not one but two (yes, 2!!) gold medals

And the list of trivia just goes on and on!:lol:

 

[tennisaddict]

Let’s start putting together some bullet points then, shall we:

...

And the list of trivia just goes on and on!:lol:

This thread missed you, thanks for blessing it with your butthurt.


#17-6-302

 

[Wynter]

Is it the awkward moment where almost every top competitor from this era led Rafa on hard up until 09 aside from Haas and Safin?

Hewitt, Roddick, Davydenko, Blake, Gonzalez and Nalbandian all comfortably dealt with Rafa off clay during their primes.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Peak Hewitt would probably beat 2013 Djokovic at Wimbledon at 2012 Djokovic at the US Open. He would still win 2 slams in this era, thus he'd be equal to Murray - and their career trajectories seem to be pretty similar too.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Peak Hewitt would probably beat 2013 Djokovic at Wimbledon at 2012 Djokovic at the US Open. He would still win 2 slams in this era, thus he'd be equal to Murray - and their career trajectories seem to be pretty similar too.

This being the operative word here Saby.

 

[Tony48]

There is no statistic to prove that Djokovic/Murray(/Nadal) would've done any better than the above listed opponents against Federer from 2003-2007. Nadal had some of his best years during that period.

Really? Djokovic beat Federer in a MASTERS FINAL. How many of Federer's peers can make that claim?

Between 2004-2007, Federer lost 6 Masters finals. 1 loss to Nalbandian, 4 to Nadal, and 1 to Djokovic.

Hewitt lost to him in a final. So did Roddick, Ljubicic, Henman, Blake, Gonzalez, and Gasquet.

It's abundantly clear that Djokovic would have fared FAR better than Federer's peers.

 

[Carsomyr]

Let’s start putting together some bullet points then, shall we:

 guys like Baghdatis (amateur journeyman 75lbs overweight to boot) and Gonzalez (forehand-only clay specialist) are all over slam finals
 bald nobody grandpa Ljubicic sitting at ATP #3 like a brooding ostrich chick
 Robby Ginepri (!!) makes USO semis a couple of weeks after getting blown out in the quarters of an Atlanta 4.5 tournament
 claycourt journeyman Massu travels to Athens and walks out with not one but two (yes, 2!!) gold medals

And the list of trivia just goes on and on!:lol:

Excellent post.

 

[tennisaddict]

Really? Djokovic beat Federer in a MASTERS FINAL. How many of Federer's peers can make that claim?

Between 2004-2007, Federer lost 6 Masters finals. 1 loss to Nalbandian, 4 to Nadal, and 1 to Djokovic.

Hewitt lost to him in a final. So did Roddick, Ljubicic, Henman, Blake, Gonzalez, and Gasquet.

It's abundantly clear that Djokovic would have fared FAR better than Federer's peers.

The only player that Fed lost to at majors (non clay) was Safin, who was washed up in 2008 and yet beat Novak 4,5 and 2 at Wimbledon after Novak won a major at AO.

See, anyone can play this game with 1 match hyperbole.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Let’s start putting together some bullet points then, shall we:

 guys like Baghdatis (amateur journeyman 75lbs overweight to boot) and Gonzalez (forehand-only clay specialist) are all over slam finals
 bald nobody grandpa Ljubicic sitting at ATP #3 like a brooding ostrich chick
 Robby Ginepri (!!) makes USO semis a couple of weeks after getting blown out in the quarters of an Atlanta 4.5 tournament
 claycourt journeyman Massu travels to Athens and walks out with not one but two (yes, 2!!) gold medals

And the list of trivia just goes on and on!:lol:

To be fair he was 9 in the world at the time.

 

[The_Order]

Peak Hewitt would probably beat 2013 Djokovic at Wimbledon at 2012 Djokovic at the US Open. He would still win 2 slams in this era, thus he'd be equal to Murray - and their career trajectories seem to be pretty similar too.

Like I said, peak level of play is probably equal. But Murray edges out in the consistency department. He's won many more Masters titles than Lleyton and has the Olympics as well and you can't say Lleyton didn't have motivation in Sydney, he had an outstanding record on that court at the time iirc.

And yes, I know Hewitt has 2 YEC and Murray none. But I'd only give Hewitt a shot at the 2008 YEC that Murray was a part of.

 

[SoBad]

To be fair he was 9 in the world at the time.

You have a good memory. Who were the # 4 – 8? Oh, let me guess:

Spadea
Hrbaty
Fish
Volandri
Chela

Did I get it right?:lol:

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You have a good memory. Who were the # 4 – 8? Oh, let me guess:

Spadea
Hrbaty
Fish
Volandri
Chela

Did I get it right?:lol:

Spadea - highest ranking was 18.
Hrbaty - highest ranking was 14 (I think).
Fish - achieved career-high rank of 7 in 2011.
Volandri - highest ranking was 25.
Chela - highest ranking was 14.

None were in the top 10 from 2004-2007.

 

[Carsomyr]

To be fair he was 9 in the world at the time.

Yes, by virtue of beating the worst French Open champion of all-time (barring Swiss junkballers) in some backwater shantytown of Austria and having made the final of a M(M)1000 the previous year, losing to the SECOND worst French Open champion of all-time (again, barring Swiss junkballers) in Madrid on a hardcourt lol.

 

[Tony48]

The only player that Fed lost to at majors (non clay) was Safin, who was washed up in 2008 and yet beat Novak 4,5 and 2 at Wimbledon after Novak won a major at AO.

See, anyone can play this game with 1 match hyperbole.

What does this have to do with ANYTHING? We're talking about Federer versus other players.

Furthermore:

It's a FACT that Djokovic beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it also a coincidence that he has beaten Federer 17 times?

It's a FACT that Nadal beat Federer in 4 Masters finals between 2004 and 2007. Is it a coincidence that he leads the H2H with him?

It's a FACT that Nalbandian beat Federer in a Masters final between 2004 and 2007. Is it a coincidence that he has more wins over him than most of Federer's peers and an almost even win-loss against him?

And as for the losers of Federer's era:

It's a FACT that Roddick never beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it a coincidence that he has a lopsided win-loss record against him?

It's a FACT that Blake never beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it also a coincidence that he has a lopsided win-loss record against him?

It's a FACT that Hewitt never beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it also a coincidence that he has a lopsided win-loss record against him?

It's a FACT that Ljubicic never beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it also a coincidence that he has a lopsided win-loss record against him?

It's a FACT that Gasquet never beat Federer in a Masters final. Is it also a coincidence that he has a lopsided win-loss record against him?

But yeah...that one match means nothing. Those are all coincidences.

 

[TMF]

Nadal/Nole/Murray would have a tougher time in 2003-2007 than the present time. The courts was faster back then and Federer's peers were deadly on fast courts.

 

[Carsomyr]

Nadal/Nole/Murray would have a tougher time in 2003-2007 than the present time. The courts was faster back then and Federer's peers were deadly on fast courts.

I hope there is a list in our immediate future.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Like I said, peak level of play is probably equal. But Murray edges out in the consistency department. He's won many more Masters titles than Lleyton and has the Olympics as well and you can't say Lleyton didn't have motivation in Sydney, he had an outstanding record on that court at the time iirc.

And yes, I know Hewitt has 2 YEC and Murray none. But I'd only give Hewitt a shot at the 2008 YEC that Murray was a part of.

I think Hewitt could have won a couple of more Masters if players like Agassi and Federer didn't stand in his way, probably not 9, but somewhere around 4 or 5 I'd say.

I don't think Hewitt took the Olympics as seriously until he was already past his best. In 2000 he was drubbed by Max Mirnyi, who is nothing more than a seasoned journeyman. And during 2004 he skipped the Olympics in favor of preparing for the USO. In 2008 he showed motivation but by this time he had already declined somewhat and was having a terrible season to boot.

I think Hewitt could win the 2009 YEC too. Davydenko was Hewitt's pigeon.

 

[The_Order]

I think Hewitt could have won a couple of more Masters if players like Agassi and Federer didn't stand in his way, probably not 9, but somewhere around 4 or 5 I'd say.

I don't think Hewitt took the Olympics as seriously until he was already past his best. In 2000 he was drubbed by Max Mirnyi, who is nothing more than a seasoned journeyman. And during 2004 he skipped the Olympics in favor of preparing for the USO. In 2008 he showed motivation but by this time he had already declined somewhat and was having a terrible season to boot.

I think Hewitt could win the 2009 YEC too. Davydenko was Hewitt's pigeon.

Maybe, but I don't see him making it out of the group to be honest. Let's assume he beats Del Po and Verdasco (like Murray did) The form they were in, I don't see him straight setting either of them. On the flip side, I think 2009 Fed straight sets Hewitt and even if he doesn't, the games difference I doubt he would've done better than Murray.

By the way, losing to Mirnyi was a result of him not dealing with the pressure of representing his country. But trust me, he took Sydney very seriously.

 

[SoBad]

Spadea - highest ranking was 18.
Hrbaty - highest ranking was 14 (I think).
Fish - achieved career-high rank of 7 in 2011.
Volandri - highest ranking was 25.
Chela - highest ranking was 14.

None were in the top 10 from 2004-2007.

Wow, and people still think that those 5 vacuum stars were solid players back in their supposed “prime years”! The 2003-2007 was even a bigger joke than the OP suggested!:lol: