D
Deleted member 779124
Guest
Yeah the only difference is i think 2015 Federer was clearly better than 2005 Hewitt at Wimbledon.fair enough. I may not agree, but I can see why.
Yeah the only difference is i think 2015 Federer was clearly better than 2005 Hewitt at Wimbledon.fair enough. I may not agree, but I can see why.
Yes Murray is a better player than Safin and Krajicek.Your stats r shiz
Same guys reaching semis every slam means your era is the weakest, not strongest.
Look at 90s, how many same guys reached semis ? Who were the big 4 ?
Someone like Andy Murray makes the semis everytime and loses to the big 3 everytime, this gives a stupid illusion that he is better than Safin or Krajicek .... Some lunatics even say that Murray would have 10+ in other era..... LOL.....but then it is not true ..... Safin has beaten Federer at his best while Andy never could beat even an old federer properly, except that 1 win in 2013 which was in Fed's horrible year and that too in 5 long sets
Jeez ... You need 5 sets beat an old injured man, what is the use of getting to all these semis ??? Obv it means outside the top 4-5 players the rest the field is crappy
Federer going from 10 to 11 in this stat is so important to you?1 player not participating in a slam has nothing to do with your wild BS.
I mean healthy enough to participate.All the players are never healthy. They are just healthy enough to compete. We don't even know the half of what is wrong with them, and what we know only comes out when they share that info.
Yes Murray is a better player than Safin and Krajicek.
How many times did Safin reach this mythical peak? A couple of times?Better achiever, but with a lower peak level.
In GOAT debate Safin can create a greater dent on Fedalovic's resume than Murray who is quite null and void.
How many times did Safin reach this mythical peak? A couple of times?
I'd take a player who can play his best tennis consistently over someone who loses Slam finals to Thomas Johansson![]()
Murray.Take where?
If your life is on the line in a match against peak Federer on HCs then whom would you pick ?
Peak Safin or Peak Murray ?
Murray.
Peak means nothing if 99% of times you play sheet.
Federer going from 10 to 11 in this stat is so important to you?
Looking at how many mediocre players won Slams in 2001-04, I'd say no.In Slams only the peak form can make you win, not mediocrity.
Hewitt was #5 in the ATP ranking. Period.No. But exposing your lack of integrity does matter.
How many times did Safin reach this mythical peak? A couple of times?
I'd take a player who can play his best tennis consistently over someone who loses Slam finals to Thomas Johansson![]()
Looking at how many mediocre players won Slams in 2000-04, I'd say no.
Hewitt was #5 in the ATP ranking. Period.
You didn't understand my critieria then.He was among the top 3 ranked players that federer could have faced in USO 04 - your criteria.
mendacious chutiya.
What a psychoHe was among the top 3 ranked players that federer could have faced in USO 04 - your criteria.
yoy got owned, mendacious chutiya. give it up.
You didn't understand my critieria then.
I consider opponents players who skipped it too."I meant one of the three highest ranked opponents."
very clear to me. Hewitt was one of the three highest ranked opponents at that slam - USO 04.
Very objective!All indicators indicate that Federer is the GOAT.
At his peak outside clay when he was full fit only Safin has beaten him and Safin is the same guy who has 2-0 H2H vs Marat, a more lethal version of Wawrinka who himself is 4-4 vs Novak in Slams, wawrinka is someone who is 0-17 to Federer overall.
So the question marks of Safin and Wawrinka are on Djokovic, not on Federer.
Federer has crushed Wawrinka and beaten Safin most of the time, Novak on the other hand 2 rivals with same style and very formidable for him.
Peak Federer would have beaten Peak Djokvic in 4 sets everytime, there won't be any clutch involved because matches wouldn't go 5 sets with tie breakers.
What a psycho![]()
“Whatever I tried, he had the answers,” Sampras said. “With his game, as big as he hits the ball, when he's on, he's very, very tough to beat.”
- Sampras's words after losing to peak Safin.
Did anyone with 10+ slams ever praise Murray like this after a grand slam final?
I consider opponents players who skipped it too.
![]()
Agassi: Andy Murray would have had three times the career in my era
Andre Agassi has hailed Andy Murray, adding that the Briton's achievements are even more remarkable for the ear in which they were won.www.tennis365.com
Look, Safin could play at an amazing level, but he also played terrible very often, including Slam finals (vs Johansson for example). So Murray is a much safer choice.
Level of play can’t be measured but Safin played bad?![]()
Agassi: Andy Murray would have had three times the career in my era
Andre Agassi has hailed Andy Murray, adding that the Briton's achievements are even more remarkable for the ear in which they were won.www.tennis365.com
Look, Safin could play at an amazing level, but he also played terrible very often, including Slam finals (vs Johansson for example). So Murray is a much safer choice.
![]()
Agassi: Andy Murray would have had three times the career in my era
Andre Agassi has hailed Andy Murray, adding that the Briton's achievements are even more remarkable for the ear in which they were won.www.tennis365.com
Look, Safin could play at an amazing level, but he also played terrible very often, including Slam finals (vs Johansson for example). So Murray is a much safer choice.
He gifted Johansson a Slam. That's like the worst Slam winner ever.Level of play can’t be measured but Safin played bad?
Not talking about Murray but the statement about level of play and eye tests all of sudden being okay.He gifted Johansson a Slam. That's like the worst Slam winner ever.
Murray from 2010 to 2016 went 10-0 in Slam finals/semis against non-Big3.
He gifted Johansson a Slam. That's like the worst Slam winner ever.
Murray from 2010 to 2016 went 10-0 in Slam finals/semis against non-Big3.
And 9/10 were better players than T. Johansson. The list is pretty impressive:He gifted Johansson a Slam. That's like the worst Slam winner ever.
Murray from 2010 to 2016 went 10-0 in Slam finals/semis against non-Big3.
Rate all of Murray’s grand slam finals out of 10.LOL @ the mention of slam finals and Murray. Murray in USO 08 and AO 11 finals say hi.
lol. You of all people playing the 'dog with a bone' card is very entertaining.Federer going from 10 to 11 in this stat is so important to you?
He was darn impressive in the Wimbledon 2012 final that is all I will say. Federer was playing legit at prime level and Murray put up a good fight so given that might be the most impressive of all of them.Rate all of Murray’s grand slam finals out of 10.
How many times did Safin reach this mythical peak? A couple of times?
I'd take a player who can play his best tennis consistently over someone who loses Slam finals to Thomas Johansson![]()
Yes that one is a good pick.
Just clocked.Did you forget that you said that? lol
Yes that is a good pick.He was darn impressive in the Wimbledon 2012 final that is all I will say. Federer was playing legit at prime level and Murray put up a good fight so given that might be the most impressive of all of them.
Well, IMO, the only time the consistency of the top guys could be used as an indicator that the competition is strong is when they actually challenge the top guy's dominance or even actually affect it.Your stats r shiz
Same guys reaching semis every slam means your era is the weakest, not strongest.
Look at 90s, how many same guys reached semis ? Who were the big 4 ?
Someone like Andy Murray makes the semis everytime and loses to the big 3 everytime, this gives a stupid illusion that he is better than Safin or Krajicek .... Some lunatics even say that Murray would have 10+ in other era..... LOL.....but then it is not true ..... Safin has beaten Federer at his best while Andy never could beat even an old federer properly, except that 1 win in 2013 which was in Fed's horrible year and that too in 5 long sets
Jeez ... You need 5 sets beat an old injured man, what is the use of getting to all these semis ??? Obv it means outside the top 4-5 players the rest the field is crappy
Wimb was a better tournament in 2015 because the final was better and more competitive than in 2005.Yeah the only difference is i think 2015 Federer was clearly better than 2005 Hewitt at Wimbledon.
True.He was darn impressive in the Wimbledon 2012 final that is all I will say. Federer was playing legit at prime level and Murray put up a good fight so given that might be the most impressive of all of them.
The question was about Murray.True.
But it wasn't more impressive than Roddick's 2004/2009 efforts for example.
Well, IMO, the only time the consistency of the top guys could be used as an indicator that the competition is strong is when they actually challenge the top guy's dominance or even actually affect it.
If they have great consistency and reach the later stages regularly, but don't have the level to challenge or affect the dominant guy's reign, then it simply means the rest of the players aren't that good and by default that allows the top guys to reach the later stages regularly.
Not surprised Pete fans hate Fed because the latter was the first one to break Pete's records. Nadal and Djokovic followed suit but by that point it wasn't the same as when Federer did it.Yes.
Unfortunately in Sir Andy's case this is what happened baring an year or 2 he never was at that high a level to challenge the Big 3 but he made the semis everytime due to the Raonics and other jokers below him in the draw.
Haters of Federer make it look like Sir Andy would have won 8-10 slams in other eras, how Federer is a weak era champ and all that ...... On Facebook groups I've seen the younger group of Nadal-Djoker fans ( I think most of them started watching Tennis after 2008 but they never accept this) they diss Federer, none of them even rate Sampras in the GOAT Race anymore and say he had no competition in his time.
Sameway you can see some guys in this forum as well who pretend to be Sampras fans and Djokovic fans who hate Federer, now that seems weird ..... A true fan of Pete would always appreciate his successor and the brand of Tennis he played in the 00s instead of dissing him and being a fanatic of Novak of all people
That makes me think they are all pretending...
Not surprised Pete fans hate Fed because the latter was the first one to break Pete's records. Nadal and Djokovic followed suit but by that point it wasn't the same as when Federer did it.
Foreign words these days.Yeah, maybe thats 1 reason .... But even then I think most of Sampras fans eventually became Federer fans.
I remember the social networking website ORKUT which was famous in 2004-2008 period (prior to Facebook taking over social media) in India-Pakistan-Brazil etc etc ..... There was Sampras fan club, it had like 10-12K members, the active members as well the moderators used to bash Federer all day on how his game lacks this, lacks that, how Sampras would have demolished Fed and how Nadal is the successor to Pete etc etc
Amusing .... but then the Federer fan club at that time was massive, there were like 100K-140K members in it and many of them were Sampras fans tooo ....
So not every Pete fan was a hater, lot of them eventually came to terms with the successor from the next gen.... it was just a change of guard.