2003-2007

[tennisaddict]

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

Novak's first win over Fed was in their 5th meeting. Novak won in 3 sets after winning 2 tie breaks. Promptly thereafter at USO , he was beaten in straights.

If Novak existed from 2003, he would have won probably few best of 3's , I don't see any form of Novak to defeat Federer in a major between 2004-07. Infact Novak was there in 06 and 07 , ending the year with ranking 16 and 3. Everyone knows he was an early bloomer , yet he didnt win any big match against Fed and Rafa at majors.

The Safin example was to show that the only man that barely beat Fed at a major during those years spanked Novak thereafter.

 

[tennisaddict]

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:

Yet OP's poster boy got recently spanked by 36 year old multi surgery Haas and Tommy Pusher Clay Robredo.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

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.

I think it would be a certainty Hewitt would beat Del Potro. He's a bad match up for him and he's almost dominated the man as a washed up journeyman. Verdasco would be closer, but I'd bet on Hewitt to do it.

I think if Davydenko could score one of his only wins over Federer at the 2009 YEC, Hewitt could score another too. Federer wasn't in the greatest of form that tournament anyway.

On the flip side, I don't think Murray is as good of an indoor player as Hewitt and I doubt Hewitt would suffer the same issues he did as I believe he prefers it..

Hewitt was also only 19 at the time, and at the same age I wouldn't expect much more from Murray at an Olympic event. If the 2004 and 2000 Olympics were switched and Hewitt elected to play in the hypothetical 2004 Olympics, he'd have a much better shot at it.

 

[SoBad]

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.

Oh, how dare anyone forget the Chilean triumph at the prestigious Austria Open that year! Didn’t the great Leos Friedl reschedule his group clinics and take the bus across the border to clinch the doubles title there that year as well?:lol:

 

[Carsomyr]

Oh, how dare anyone forget the Chilean triumph at the prestigious Austria Open that year! Didn’t the great Leos Friedl reschedule his group clinics and take the bus across the border to clinch the doubles title there that year as well?:lol:

Really, Massu's only legitimate opponent that tournament was Berdych, who, despite not emerging as a top tier opponent until after the vacuum era, was still good enough to take out the trash at the Olympics and clear the way for Chilean gold.

 

[Carsomyr]

Thank goodness Berdych rounded into form when he did, in his mid-late 20s and post the vacuum period - otherwise, people would be stuck in this silly notion that Federer played quality opponents and/or that his best tennis was from 21-26! :lol:

 

[SoBad]

Really, Massu's only legitimate opponent that tournament was Berdych, who, despite not emerging as a top tier opponent until after the vacuum era, was still good enough to take out the trash at the Olympics and clear the way for Chilean gold.

Ah yes, if it weren’t for Yuri Schukin – another Schweizer Strasse hero with his hand stuck firmly in the Atyrau cookie jar!:lol:

And yet the teenage Berdych, a slender naïve blond-haired teenage boy deeply traumatized by the political turmoil in his backyard, was ready to dispatch the spoiled high-maintenance private academy diva pretenders that year already! So much for the 2003-2007!:lol:

 

[Carsomyr]

I think you are being unfair on Fish. He had his best seasons in 2010 and 2011; he even finished 2011 in the top ten! Clearly, with weak era Atkins failures like Nalbandian and balding middle-aged Russian entrepreneurs like Davydenko no longer hogging up ranking points like they did in the good old days of vacuum-sealed top ten spots handed to them on platters, Mardy Fish could finally play his best tennis.

 

[Tony48]

Novak's first win over Fed was in their 5th meeting. Novak won in 3 sets after winning 2 tie breaks. Promptly thereafter at USO , he was beaten in straights.

If Novak existed from 2003, he would have won probably few best of 3's , I don't see any form of Novak to defeat Federer in a major between 2004-07. Infact Novak was there in 06 and 07 , ending the year with ranking 16 and 3. Everyone knows he was an early bloomer , yet he didnt win any big match against Fed and Rafa at majors.

So I guess the rest of my post doesn't matter then? You're just going to ignore the extremely strong correlation between beating Federer in a Masters final and having success against him overall?

Djokovic beat Federer the very next year at the Australian Open. Coincidence?

Nadal beats Federer almost every time they play. Coincidence?

How many times has Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, etc ever beaten Federer in a slam? Never mind 2004-2007. EVER? A combined zero times. Never. Not past his peak. Not during his peak. Not before his peak. Never. And what do they all have in common? They never beat Federer in a Masters final.

Yet almost everyone that has managed to beat Federer in a Masters final has beaten him in a slam as well. Nadal, Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, etc. Coincidence? And since a Masters final is right up there with slam-level contention, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that Djokovic would have most certainly beaten Federer if he got to play him a bunch of times like Roddick did or Hewitt did.

After all I have explained, if you still don't think that a Masters final serves as a strong indicator as to how a player would fare against Federer overall (including slams), then I don't know what to say.

And I don't know why you're using Djokovic's "early bloomer" status as something against him. That makes absolutely NO sense. Djokovic was the less experienced one. Why you're using that to slight him while he was playing the most experienced player of all time is absurd. The fact that he was an early bloomer and STILL able to beat Federer in a Masters final says a lot.

The Safin example was to show that the only man that barely beat Fed at a major during those years spanked Novak thereafter.

OK? What does that have to do with this discussion? The topic is Federer vs. other players, not Djokovic vs other players.

 

[SoBad]

I think you are being unfair on Fish. He had his best seasons in 2010 and 2011; he even finished 2011 in the top ten! Clearly, with weak era Atkins failures like Nalbandian and balding middle-aged Russian entrepreneurs like Davydenko no longer hogging up ranking points like they did in the good old days of vacuum-sealed top ten spots handed to them on platters, Mardy Fish could finally play his best tennis.

I think we all know that by the time Fish was getting blown out in easy sets by the likes of Rajeev Ram (!@!:lol toward the end of 2009, stuffing his sorrows at all-you-can-eat buffets all over Florida panhandle was no longer a viable option. Not in the post-2007 environment!:lol:

 

[Carsomyr]

Indeed - players really had to commit to proper diets, training, exercise, celebrity coaching to get ahead post-2007. Weak era specialists like Chela had to be at their absolute peak in order to reach major QFs in the last few years.

 

[Russeljones]

So I guess the rest of my post doesn't matter then? You're just going to ignore the extremely strong correlation between beating Federer in a Masters final and having success against him overall?

Djokovic beat Federer the very next year at the Australian Open. Coincidence?

Nadal beats Federer almost every time they play. Coincidence?

How many times has Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, etc ever beaten Federer in a slam? Never mind 2004-2007. EVER? A combined zero times. Never. Not past his peak. Not during his peak. Not before his peak. Never. And what do they all have in common? They never beat Federer in a Masters final.

Yet almost everyone that has managed to beat Federer in a Masters final has beaten him in a slam as well. Nadal, Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, etc. Coincidence? And since a Masters final is right up there with slam-level contention, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that Djokovic would have most certainly beaten Federer if he got to play him a bunch of times like Roddick did or Hewitt did.
After all I have explained, if you still don't think that a Masters final serves as a strong indicator as to how a player would fare against Federer overall (including slams), then I don't know what to say.

And I don't know why you're using Djokovic's "early bloomer" status as something against him. That makes absolutely NO sense. Djokovic was the less experienced one. Why you're using that to slight him while he was playing the most experienced player of all time is absurd. The fact that he was an early bloomer and STILL able to beat Federer in a Masters final says a lot.



OK? What does that have to do with this discussion? The topic is Federer vs. other players, not Djokovic vs other players.

:roll::roll::roll: You even used the word "reasonable". lol

 

[Anti-Fedal]

A serious transitional era in the men's game.

 

[tennisaddict]

So I guess the rest of my post doesn't matter then? You're just going to ignore the extremely strong correlation between beating Federer in a Masters final and having success against him overall?

Djokovic beat Federer the very next year at the Australian Open. Coincidence?

Nadal beats Federer almost every time they play. Coincidence?

How many times has Hewitt, Roddick, Blake, Ljubicic, etc ever beaten Federer in a slam? Never mind 2004-2007. EVER? A combined zero times. Never. Not past his peak. Not during his peak. Not before his peak. Never. And what do they all have in common? They never beat Federer in a Masters final.

Yet almost everyone that has managed to beat Federer in a Masters final has beaten him in a slam as well. Nadal, Murray, Nalbandian, Djokovic, etc. Coincidence? And since a Masters final is right up there with slam-level contention, it's pretty reasonable to conclude that Djokovic would have most certainly beaten Federer if he got to play him a bunch of times like Roddick did or Hewitt did.

After all I have explained, if you still don't think that a Masters final serves as a strong indicator as to how a player would fare against Federer overall (including slams), then I don't know what to say.

And I don't know why you're using Djokovic's "early bloomer" status as something against him. That makes absolutely NO sense. Djokovic was the less experienced one. Why you're using that to slight him while he was playing the most experienced player of all time is absurd. The fact that he was an early bloomer and STILL able to beat Federer in a Masters final says a lot.



OK? What does that have to do with this discussion? The topic is Federer vs. other players, not Djokovic vs other players.

Fed's only loss to Novak at majors before AO 2010 was in AO 2008, the major he was sick/mono/out of form. At majors, he never lost to anyone other than Nadal

Fed had losses outside of majors starting 2008 to other players , but he did.not.lose majors to them.

Correlating masters wins with majors performance is a false premise.

 

[drm025]

Fed's only loss to Novak at majors before AO 2010 was in AO 2008, the major he was sick/mono/out of form. At majors, he never lost to anyone other than Nadal

Fed had losses outside of majors starting 2008 to other players , but he did.not.lose majors to them.

Correlating masters wins with majors performance is a false premise.

But as he pointed out, each player that has beaten him in a major final has beaten him in a slam, and not once, but multiple times. It's not about just beating him in a masters, there is no correlation there. The finals are a different story. It's harder to rise to the occasion and win the title against someone like Federer. Tsonga is another player to beat him in a Masters final just this year and has multiple wins in slams against him. Wawrinka also beat him in a Masters final, but doesn't have a slam win, though the only chance he had this year was on his worst surface (Wimbledon). The only players he lost to in a masters final that did not beat him in a major are Wawrinka and Mantilla, both of these defeats coming before or after his prime.

 

[mike danny]

Fed's prime ended after 2009. It is simple. Losin before the finals of RG and W, something that didn't happen for a lot of years up to that point is a great sign of decline. Just because he had 2 great tournaments at AO and WTF in 2010 doesn't mean he was in his prime. He simply happened to play well at the start and at the end of the year, but not all around.

Seriously only deluded people would think that miraculously everybody got better and Fed stayed the same.

 

[NatF]

Fed's prime ended after 2009. It is simple. Losin before the finals of RG and W, something that didn't happen for a lot of years up to that point is a great sign of decline. Just because he had 2 great tournaments at AO and WTF in 2010 doesn't mean he was in his prime. He simply happened to play well at the start and at the end of the year, but not all around.

Seriously only deluded people would think that miraculously everybody got better and Fed stayed the same.

Especially when Murray and Djokovic actually got worse in 2010 compared to 2009...

 

[tennisaddict]

But as he pointed out, each player that has beaten him in a major final has beaten him in a slam, and not once, but multiple times. It's not about just beating him in a masters, there is no correlation there. The finals are a different story. It's harder to rise to the occasion and win the title against someone like Federer. Tsonga is another player to beat him in a Masters final just this year and has multiple wins in slams against him. Wawrinka also beat him in a Masters final, but doesn't have a slam win, though the only chance he had this year was on his worst surface (Wimbledon). The only players he lost to in a masters final that did not beat him in a major are Wawrinka and Mantilla, both of these defeats coming before or after his prime.

All this is just hyperbole.

Fact remains Fed did not lose to any player other than Nadal when he won those 11 majors in 4 years and that too just on clay. He was just that invincible.

 

[Nadal>>>>>Federer]

All this is just hyperbole.

Fact remains Fed did not lose to any player other than Nadal when he won those 11 majors in 4 years and that too just on clay. He was just that invincible.

Kuerten says hello.

 

[drm025]

Kuerten says hello.

And Safin, of course.

 

[drm025]

All this is just hyperbole.

Fact remains Fed did not lose to any player other than Nadal when he won those 11 majors in 4 years and that too just on clay. He was just that invincible.

All this is hyperbole? All except for 2 sentences or so are facts, which are not hyperbole.

 

[tennisaddict]

All this is hyperbole? All except for 2 sentences or so are facts, which are not hyperbole.

I am not going to be entertaining your trivial posts.

Tell me how many times Nadal has lost in clay masters and how many times he has lost at FO.

Top players are a different breed when it comes to majors.

Again, what remains as fact as Novak stayed on the tour ranked 16 in 2006 and 3 in 2007 , so he was part of the 4 year period when Fed won 11 majors and he simply couldnt stop him. Undeniable Fact.

 

[Steve0904]

Kuerten says hello.

So which "new" green user are you?

 

[jg153040]

Why is Federer losing to Kuerten and Safin so terrible?

Those are multiple GS champions and were nr.1

I mean, this is grasping for straws. Nadal lost to freaking Ferrer, Rosol, Soderling, Darcis, Kyrgios and then people dare to bring Kuerten and Safin?

 

[drm025]

Why is Federer losing to Kuerten and Safin so terrible?

Those are multiple GS champions and were nr.1

I mean, this is grasping for straws. Nadal lost to freaking Ferrer, Rosol, Soderling, Darcis, Kyrgios and then people dare to bring Kuerten and Safin?

Only pointed it out becasue the poster said fed lost only to nadal on clay from 2004-2007. And no grand slam losses are "ok" or "acceptable" for all-time greats, jmo.

 

[drm025]

I am not going to be entertaining your trivial posts.

Tell me how many times Nadal has lost in clay masters and how many times he has lost at FO.

Top players are a different breed when it comes to majors.

Again, what remains as fact as Novak stayed on the tour ranked 16 in 2006 and 3 in 2007 , so he was part of the 4 year period when Fed won 11 majors and he simply couldnt stop him. Undeniable Fact.

And in the same vein, Federer lost a gs final to djokovic this year while being ranked number 4. It goes both ways. Federer couldnt stop him on his favorite court.

 

[jg153040]

Only pointed it out becasue the poster said fed lost only to nadal on clay from 2004-2007. And no grand slam losses are "ok" or "acceptable" for all-time greats, jmo.

Maybe he meant consistently losing. Sometimes people mean consistently losing when they argue greatness.

Fed lost only to Nadal. Which means, Nadal is the only player who actually troubled Federer. It doesn't mean literally.

Also this is usually expanded to big matches when we say prime Fed didn't lose to anyone except Nadal.

While I agree we big matches are more important, I don't agree that losing to one guy consistently is worse than losing to more people less consistently.

It's equal to me. Losing, to Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios is the same as losing 3 times to Nadal. Most people would argue that having your losses spread vs weaker player than vs one strong player is even worse.

I consider worse losing once to three different lesser players than three times to one all-time great.

 

[tennisaddict]

Maybe he meant consistently losing. Sometimes people mean consistently losing when they argue greatness.

Fed lost only to Nadal. Which means, Nadal is the only player who actually troubled Federer. It doesn't mean literally.

Also this is usually expanded to big matches when we say prime Fed didn't lose to anyone except Nadal.

While I agree we big matches are more important, I don't agree that losing to one guy consistently is worse than losing to more people less consistently.

It's equal to me. Losing, to Darcis, Rosol, Kyrgios is the same as losing 3 times to Nadal. Most people would argue that having your losses spread vs weaker player than vs one strong player is even worse.

I consider worse losing once to three different lesser players than three times to one all-time great.

Exactly..I didnt feel the need to elaborate thinking folks would understand. But looks like we have to explain it to the minutest level here.

 

[tennisaddict]

And in the same vein, Federer lost a gs final to djokovic this year while being ranked number 4. It goes both ways. Federer couldnt stop him on his favorite court.

How is this relevant to this thread ?

 

[drm025]

How is this relevant to this thread ?

Just refuting your point of using ranking to determine that Djokovic was competition for Fed in 2006 and 2007.

If Djokovic was competition then, Federer is competition now.

I believe you feel that Federer is not competition at the current moment, which would mean that ranking is irrelevant.

 

[drm025]

Exactly..I didnt feel the need to elaborate thinking folks would understand. But looks like we have to explain it to the minutest level here.

I'm glad you don't feel the need to fully explain yourself on an internet forum full of strangers. There is no tone when you post on the internet and we also don't know you as a person. If you don't want to fully explain yourself, then you're lazy, and you should expect people to misunderstand you and then for you to have to explain yourself anyway.

 

[tennisaddict]

Just refuting your point of using ranking to determine that Djokovic was competition for Fed in 2006 and 2007.

If Djokovic was competition then, Federer is competition now.

I believe you feel that Federer is not competition at the current moment, which would mean that ranking is irrelevant.

That is not the subject of this thread.

 

[jg153040]

I'm glad you don't feel the need to fully explain yourself on an internet forum full of strangers. There is no tone when you post on the internet and we also don't know you as a person. If you don't want to fully explain yourself, then you're lazy, and you should expect people to misunderstand you and then for you to have to explain yourself anyway.

You still didn't explain yourself what you think about Lendl having all those extra GS finals

 

[drm025]

That is not the subject of this thread.

I apologize, we're only concerned with 2003-2007? Fed is the undeniable GOAT then.

 

[jg153040]

I apologize, we're only concerned with 2003-2007? Fed is the undeniable GOAT then.

Federer is the goat of his era.

But anyway, yes, Federer had 3 years like Nole 2011, other goat contenders only had 1 such year.

Case closed.

 

[drm025]

Federer is the goat of his era.

But anyway, yes, Federer had 3 years like Nole 2011, other goat contenders only had 1 such year.

Case closed.

But still his slam record is being chased. How is that possible?

 

[drm025]

You still didn't explain yourself what you think about Lendl having all those extra GS finals

Lol, yep I did twice, but that is also off topic. PM me if you really want to know what I already told you.

 

[jg153040]

Lol, yep I did twice, but that is also off topic. PM me if you really want to know what I already told you.

I was kidding. I don't really need to know that badly.

 

[jg153040]

But still his slam record is being chased. How is that possible?

So? We value peak level a lot more, so slams aren't everything.

CYGS is amazing peak level. So, we value this a lot. Concentrated dominance.

CYGS is worth more than career slam.

 

[drm025]

So? We value peak level a lot more, so slams aren't everything.

CYGS is amazing peak level. So, we value this a lot. Concentrated dominance.

CYGS is worth more than career slam.

Right so you only look at parts of a career and ignore others. Fed fans are more concerned with peak level, I know. I'm concerned with the entire career.

 

[TMF]

Right so you only look at parts of a career and ignore others. Fed fans are more concerned with peak level, I know. I'm concerned with the entire career.

Peak level and entire career Nadal remains behind Federer.

Nadal better watch his back because Nole is chasing him.

 

[jg153040]

Right so you only look at parts of a career and ignore others. Fed fans are more concerned with peak level, I know. I'm concerned with the entire career.

No, peak level is just a bonus. I didn't say it's everything. I look entire career yes.

I guess it all depends how Nadal will do next 3 years. But, some Fed's great records are out of reach, so I really doubt Nadal will ever be greater. At best, they will end up being equal. And even this is very unlikely.

Fed past his prime won only 1 major. Nole and Rafa are now winning only 1 major per year and they are right at the verge of huge decline. 2% and you are gone, like Fed in 2010. You start losing close matches that you won in your prime. New younger guys believe they can take you now.

For now Fed is still the goat by some margins.

 

[drm025]

No, peak level is just a bonus. I didn't say it's everything. I look entire career yes.

I guess it all depends how Nadal will do next 3 years. But, some Fed's great records are out of reach, so I really doubt Nadal will ever be greater. At best, they will end up being equal. And even this is very unlikely.

Fed past his prime won only 1 major. Nole and Rafa are now winning only 1 major per year and they are right at the verge of huge decline. 2% and you are gone, like Fed in 2010. You start losing close matches that you won in your prime. New younger guys believe they can take you now.

For now Fed is still the goat by some margins.

I'm not as interested in the goat, more the best of this era.

Even though we disagree on some criteria, I still think Fed has the slight edge at this point, if Nadal won nothing else. Of course, Nadal can change that and I also believe that federer can negatively affect his career if he continues to play on and wins nothing significant, imo. I know I'm in the minority here, but it all counts for me.

You have shown to be a more respectable poster than I thought initially. I'm glad to find people that I can have a serious discussion with.

 

[tennisaddict]

Even though we disagree on some criteria, I still think Fed has the slight edge at this point, if Nadal won nothing else. Of course, Nadal can change that and I also believe that federer can negatively affect his career if he continues to play on and wins nothing significant, imo. I know I'm in the minority here, but it all counts for me.

You have shown to be a more respectable poster than I thought initially. I'm glad to find people that I can have a serious discussion with.

Only in TTW ...

 

[drm025]

Only in TTW ...

Weren't you on my case for butting into conversations before??

And yes, sorry, but I don't think you get unlimited free chances at trying to win a title with no consequence. If you win, great. If you lose, you lose, that's not a positive. Again, I make my decisions based on every match in a player's career.

 

[Chanwan]

Fed past his prime won only 1 major. Nole and Rafa are now winning only 1 major per year and they are right at the verge of huge decline. 2% and you are gone, like Fed in 2010. You start losing close matches that you won in your prime. New younger guys believe they can take you now.

The big difference is that Fed had two all time greats - a peak Rafa, a peak Nole - and a peakish Murray to contend with once his decline set in. Rafa and Nole have only really got each other now (and players below their level, but who might get some wins here and there now), so whoever declines the slowest will still have a massive advantage in terms of winning slams going forward.

(this is presuming the "new comers" don't suddenly rise to all-time great levels).

 

[tennisaddict]

Weren't you on my case for butting into conversations before??

And yes, sorry, but I don't think you get unlimited free chances at trying to win a title with no consequence. If you win, great. If you lose, you lose, that's not a positive. Again, I make my decisions based on every match in a player's career.

I did not call you out there for interference but because you were not reading at the prior posts in the thread.

we are free to comment on others opinions here.

 

[jg153040]

I'm not as interested in the goat, more the best of this era.

Even though we disagree on some criteria, I still think Fed has the slight edge at this point, if Nadal won nothing else. Of course, Nadal can change that and I also believe that federer can negatively affect his career if he continues to play on and wins nothing significant, imo. I know I'm in the minority here, but it all counts for me.

You have shown to be a more respectable poster than I thought initially. I'm glad to find people that I can have a serious discussion with.

For me goat or better in this era is the same. Because better player in this era is the goat. Tennis channel crowned Federer the goat. So, if Nadal is better, Nadal is the goat. Or equals. There are no other options. So, better in this era is actually goat discussion, since Federer was crowned already.

Thanks. You are respectable too. I just don't look detailed discussions. I like more on the basic level. Sometimes we argue about non important details and missing the big picture.

But sometimes you skew stats a lot. I don't know if you do this on purpose making Fed look bad or you simply don't see the flaws in using win % and not using the same sample size.

 

[drm025]

For me goat or better in this era is the same. Because better player in this era is the goat. Tennis channel crowned Federer the goat. So, if Nadal is better, Nadal is the goat. Or equals. There are no other options. So, better in this era is actually goat discussion, since Federer was crowned already.

Thanks. You are respectable too. I just don't look detailed discussions. I like more on the basic level. Sometimes we argue about non important details and missing the big picture.

But sometimes you skew stats a lot. I don't know if you do this on purpose making Fed look bad or you simply don't see the flaws in using win % and not using the same sample size.

This is where we also disagree, because I don't understand how using all of the data is skewing the data. The sample size is a player's career. Do you suggest that for a player with a longer career we just throw out matches outside of prime to get the same sample size as someone with a shorter career? Seems more skewed to me.

If you are simply saying we need to wait for both players' careers to be over, I agree. The current numbers let us see who is currently on top, though.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

:roll::roll::roll: You even used the word "reasonable". lol

Tony makes good predictions.