3rd best hard courter of 2001-2010 decade behind Fed/Nadal

[intrepidish]

As I said, one good run at a slam in my opinion is luck.

Right and 2 slams, 5 Masters and a gold is what again?

Nadal has 2 slams, 5 Masters and a gold plus many semis and quarters in big tournaments. 8 tournaments he won and many others where he fared well.

For so many matches and tournament wins to be discussed in terms of luck is simply ludicrous.

 

[NadalAgassi]

Luck is generally a term used for a shock 1 slam wonder like Johansson or Majoli. It isnt generally associated with someone who has won multiple major titles on ALL surfaces like Nadal. Nadal has won both the Australian and U.S Opens, has won the Olympics on hard courts, has won 5 Masters titles and been in many other Masters finals on hard courts, has won other hard court titles including beating Federer in an outstanding Dubai final at only 19, has been to the semis of all the hard court slams in the last 3 years except 1 (where he lost to Murray in the quarters), and is 3-4 lifetime vs Federer on hard courts (3-1 on outdoor hard courts). Yet he is still lucky to be winning on hard courts according to anyone? Astounding.

 

[Manus Domini]

Luck is generally a term used for a shock 1 slam wonder like Johansson or Majoli. It isnt generally associated with someone who has won multiple major titles on ALL surfaces like Nadal. Nadal has won both the Australian and U.S Opens, has won the Olympics on hard courts, has won 5 Masters titles and been in many other Masters finals on hard courts, has won other hard court titles including beating Federer in an outstanding Dubai final at only 19, has been to the semis of all the hard court slams in the last 3 years except 1 (where he lost to Murray in the quarters), and is 3-4 lifetime vs Federer on hard courts (3-1 on outdoor hard courts). Yet he is still lucky to be winning on hard courts according to anyone? Astounding.

as I said, he may have had lucky runs. In the olympics, his opponent in the final wasn't a bigshot HC player. As I said, if he isn't lucky, he should prove it at this AO

 

[Turning Pro]

compared Agassi, hewitt, and Safin, he is lucky.

I'll concede it isn't 100% luck, but the fact that he hasn't gotten to even the semis of the AO again, has a dearth of HC titles in comparison to other slam winners, and doesn't usually get that far in the grand slam HCs tend to tell me that luck is an important fact

and no, his clay court wins are not luck, nor are the WC. Fed got lucky playing Soderling in 2009. Luck, in my opinion, is in place here because he didn't get close to the title before or proving it again. He didn't make the AO semis this past year, lost decisively to Del Potro in 2009 USO. had DP been healthy I think he would have won another slam, though it may have just been luck, until he is uninjured we can't know.

If Nadal makes the semis of AO and wins, or loses to the eventual champion in the semis (or prior to semis in 5 sets), I will concede it isn't luck. Until that time, it will be in my opinion

nadal has been to the semi's AT LEAST of the u.s open in the past 3 years, has 2 qf's and a semi at the ao. .plus 2 hc slams, olympics gold and 5 masters on his worst surface all at the age of 24 . what more do you want...

 

[Manus Domini]

nadal has been to the semi's AT LEAST of the u.s open in the past 3 years, has 2 qf's and a semi at the ao. .plus 2 hc slams, olympics gold and 5 masterson his worst surface. what more do you want...

why didn't someone just say that? I presumed that he usually didn't break QF, got one USO semi, and got two lucky runs at AO and USO

 

[intrepidish]

why didn't someone just say that? I presumed that he usually didn't break QF, got one USO semi, and got two lucky runs at AO and USO

I told you already above that he made multiple semis and finals of big hard court tournies plus the 5 Masters, 2 Slams and a gold medal but that was not enough for you strangely.

 

[Jchurch]

I told you already above that he made multiple semis and finals of big hard court tournies plus the 5 Masters, 2 Slams and a gold medal but that was not enough for you strangely.

Nadal has proven he is more than capable of competing on hard court. If Nadal doesn't at least reach the finals of the USO and AO one more time, his wins will be declared lucky. This has nothing to do with hatred for Nadal. If Federer's FO 09 was his only final, then I would surely say it was lucky also.

Would you call Nadal's 2010 USO draw rather easy?

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

What is this nonsense about Nadal not being the 2nd HC of this era? Going back to 2005 Nadal has been a consistent threat on HC and won major titles on the surface. Beating Fed multiple times on HC, winning Canada 2x, Madrid indoors, IW 2x, and Olympic Gold FWIW on the surface. His 2 HC slams are anything but flukes, he earned them. No doubt he's the 2nd behind Fed.

3rd I went w/ Djoker b/c of the AO, USO finals, and YEC title. But Hewitt may have a good argument, too bad he petered out at the end of the decade.

 

[Messarger]

compared Agassi, hewitt, and Safin, he is lucky.

I'll concede it isn't 100% luck, but the fact that he hasn't gotten to even the semis of the AO again, has a dearth of HC titles in comparison to other slam winners, and doesn't usually get that far in the grand slam HCs tend to tell me that luck is an important fact

I hope you realize that he won the AO in 2009, and since then he has only played one AO. The way you put it sounds as if he made one AO semi final, and couldnt repeat that feat in 5 years.

Also, i hope you realize that before 2008, when he was still developing his hard court game, he was usually eliminated at the quarters. But since then, he has play 6 hard court majors and reached 5 semi finals and 2 wins. I think making the semis can be considered far.

response in bold, not underlined.
In short, i think you need to reserve your judgment for a while given that Nadal has been steadily improving his hard court performances throughout his career. If the trend does not continue in 2011 and beyond, then i would attribute it to luck. But right now, it's too early to evaluate anything.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Nadal is the second best hard courter of this decade, no doubt in my mind about that.

I'm sure if the players were asked that if they could take anyone's hardcourt results for this part decade, with the exception of Federer, it would be Nadal's.

AO and USO, plus Olympics, and a couple of Masters. Not bad for a guy who is apparently not good on hard courts.

This part decade, Federer and Nadal have been the top two players on clay, grass and hard. That makes the Fedal era truly special.

 

[TheTruth]

Nadal is the second best hard courter of this decade, no doubt in my mind about that.

I'm sure if the players were asked that if they could take anyone's hardcourt results for this part decade, with the exception of Federer, it would be Nadal's.

AO and USO, plus Olympics, and a couple of Masters. Not bad for a guy who is apparently not good on hard courts.

This part decade, Federer and Nadal have been the top two players on clay, grass and hard. That makes the Fedal era truly special.

If you really stop and think about it, it really is special.

Nobody brings it as consistently as they do on all surfaces.

Years from now, when the youngsters are trashing them, and we say, "no, they really were that good," we won't be exaggerating.

You see one and think, "no one can beat this guy when he's playing like this," and then you see the other one, and say the same thing.

Then when they come together, it's pure magic.

I think Rafa and Fed themselves may have actually come to this conclusion.

Two all time greats battling it out for supremacy in a competitive and healthy manner...that's as good as it gets.

These are special times indeed.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

These are special times indeed.

I couldn't have said it better.

 

[NadalAgassi]

I agree. Nadal and Federer are taking the game to new heights, even higher than Sampras and Agassi jointly took it. It will be a long time before there are 2 players at that caliber ever again.

 

[TheTruth]

I agree. Nadal and Federer are taking the game to new heights, even higher than Sampras and Agassi jointly took it. It will be a long time before there are 2 players at that caliber ever again.

I'm going to be honest.

For years I thought Federer was all hype. To me, it seemed like whenever he played people like Soderling, Verdasco, Davydenko, Blake, that they weren't really believing that they could win. They would make silly mistakes when they were even, or ahead, and I thought, man this is bogus. Play the man, he's not a god.

So, after watching what I thought was the opposition laying down I quit watching his matches intently. Every now and then it might be on but it wasn't Must See TV for me.

Then, when Rafa came out and they started battling, it caught my attention, and as good as Fed played against the field, I was shocked to see how well he could play against Rafa, because in some of his losses I didn't think he was a true fighter.

However, I still wasn't ready to give in to my bias. Then I noticed that when they played in important matches, the tennis was sublime.

It was Wimbledon, 2008 that opened my eyes. It was a match no one should lose because the tennis was unbelievable. Two sets down and I thought it was over for Fed. When he came back and battled to the death I couldn't believe it. After the match I came to the realizatin that no one other than those two could have withstood the rigors of that match, not Murray, Djokovic, or anyone else. They both refused to lose, but unfortunately, one of them had to.

A while back I was rewatching that match, sans emotion, and I thought, this isn't going to last forever. In fact, we may not see this again for a long time. It's best not to be foolish and appreciate it.

It's easy to see why those two guys get along so famously. They both made each other better players, and they well know it.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Safin won only 1 slam from 2001-2010. He was runner up in 2 others. If it was 2000-2010 I would have put him higher.

The reality is this thread is being done a year late. A decade runs from 0 to 9.. I.e. First day of 2000 to the last day of 2009. Then the first day of 2010 to the last day of 2019. So, in that respect the 2nd part of your comment makes complete sense.

For those who don't agree - which I'm sure there will be some... Think of it this way: how old are you when you're born? You're not 1, but you're in your first year. When you turn 1 it means 1 whole year has elapsed. Immediately from then on you are in your 2nd year. Grouping years is the same: they started at year 0...1, 2, 3... up until the last moment before it turned to 10 that was the 1st decade. Thereafter it is a new decade. 2011 is the 2nd year of this decade.

(N.B. In fairness to the OP, maybe he/she did just mean the past ten year period up until the end of 2010 and wasn't implying that the decade started in 2001)

 

[RPM Blast]

I'm going to be honest.

For years I thought Federer was all hype. To me, it seemed like whenever he played people like Soderling, Verdasco, Davydenko, Blake, that they weren't really believing that they could win. They would make silly mistakes when they were even, or ahead, and I thought, man this is bogus. Play the man, he's not a god.

They are weak opposition. You failed to acknwledge the fact Federer routinely put beatdowns on guys like Hewitt (2 slams) Roddick (1 slam) and occassionally guys like Safin and Nalbandian who aren't pushovers. Those players other than Soderling you mentioned don't beleive full stop, let alone against the greatest player ever. Whether you like it or not Federer dominated some very good players even in slam finals.

So, after watching what I thought was the opposition laying down I quit watching his matches intently. Every now and then it might be on but it wasn't Must See TV for me.

Then, when Rafa came out and they started battling, it caught my attention, and as good as Fed played against the field, I was shocked to see how well he could play against Rafa, because in some of his losses I didn't think he was a true fighter.

Yeah, Federer didn't fight in his matches, that would explain why he won pretty much every 5th setter he played in 04-07 in his dominant years other than his AO 2005 SF match. Federer just didn't fight did he :roll:

However, I still wasn't ready to give in to my bias. Then I noticed that when they played in important matches, the tennis was sublime.

It was Wimbledon, 2008 that opened my eyes. It was a match no one should lose because the tennis was unbelievable. Two sets down and I thought it was over for Fed. When he came back and battled to the death I couldn't believe it. After the match I came to the realizatin that no one other than those two could have withstood the rigors of that match, not Murray, Djokovic, or anyone else. They both refused to lose, but unfortunately, one of them had to.

Um, the quality of the Wimbledon 2008 final was good, but not great. The only reason it gets talked about is because it was Federer and Nadal. I guarentee you, Federer and Nadal could play an error filled match and it would still get talked up and remembered above the other classic matches not involving both Federer and Nadal. Ironically I beleive the AO 2009 SF between Verdasco and Nadal and the AO 2005 SF between Federer and Safin were both much, much better matches in terms of quality and even drama.

A while back I was rewatching that match, sans emotion, and I thought, this isn't going to last forever. In fact, we may not see this again for a long time. It's best not to be foolish and appreciate it.

It's easy to see why those two guys get along so famously. They both made each other better players, and they well know it.

Debateable. Federer's level was incredibly high before Nadal came into his own on hard courts and grass. Unless you're saying Federer's Wimbledon 2008level surpasses his 2004/05/06 level........LOL!

 

[Hood_Man]

If Nadal wins the upcoming Australian Open, will the previous decade mysteriously become 2002-2011 to accommodate?

Agassi was the 2nd best hard courter of the last decade. 3 Australian Open wins, 2 US Open Finals, 6 Hard Court Masters wins (and another final), 2 Year End Championship Finals, and in total on won 14 hard court titles, and lost 9 finals.

Nadal in comparison won two hard court Majors, 5 Hard Court Masters, an Olympic Gold Medal, reached 1 Year End Championship Final, and in total won 11 hard court titles, losing 7 finals.

The numbers don't add up here...

 

[miyagi]

I thought a decade was from 2000 - 2009 did you do that on purpose OP?

Anyway it is really hard to answer because imo the two most talented players Safin & Agassi (since we are looking at '01-'10) were injured alot and without that could have achieved so much more imo! So I'd have to go with one of these two even though their achievements may not be head and shoulders than the other candidates....

Anyone saying Nadal is lucky to win Olympics, AO & USO are just haters anyone who has watched Nadal should know on his day he could give anyone a run for their money on hard and he has worked very hard to improve himself on all surfaces!

 

[Deleted member 22147]

01-10. Safin won it 00. OMG, you cant say that he wouldve won million slams if he wouldnt been injured. I can say then that if Agassi wouldnt been 30+ in this decade, he wouldve won 10 slams. That hypothetical(sp??).

Still my order is the same, cause Hewitt sprinted some years and faded then. Roddick is the no 1 concistency(sp?) guy and Djoker played in the hardest era.

It's very likely Safin would have won another slam if he hadn't been injured all the time. 2003 he would have had a huge shot to possibly win more than 1. And he was never given the chance after the AO 2005 because he injured his knee in the clay season. Regardless, from 2000-2010, Safin is still ahead of everyone bar Federer and Agassi.

The guy has decided to start a thread starting from 2001 so Safin isn't in the equation.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

It's very likely Safin would have won another slam if he hadn't been injured all the time. 2003 he would have had a huge shot to possibly win more than 1. And he was never given the chance after the AO 2005 because he injured his knee in the clay season. Regardless, from 2000-2010, Safin is still ahead of everyone bar Federer and Agassi.

The guy has decided to start a thread starting from 2001 so Safin isn't in the equation.

I know you're THE Safin fanatic on here, but Nadal outperformed him even taking 2000 into account.

2 slams = 2 slams

Safin had 2 finals and a SF but other than that never made it past the 4th of a HC slam. Nadal has 2 slams, 3 SF, and 2 QF at HC slams.

Nadal has 5 MS titles on HC to Safin's 4 (technically 1 but I'll give him Paris even though it was on Carpet the times he won it). Nadal has the Olympic Gold though not as important as some Nadal fans make it, still is a good achievement on HC on the level of a MS title.

Nadal has 11 HC titles overall and 20 HC finals, to Safin's 12 (again Paris being on carpet, so technically 9) and 18 finals.

Saying Safin would have definitely won more HC slams is no better than the Nadal fans who say he'd have won AO 10 and USO 08-09 if he wasn't 'injured'. You may say that Safin was better but the resume's say otherwise.

 

[RPM Blast]

Safin has 4 slam finals on hard. I don't see how Nadal having a couple of slam semis and QF's can give him equality to Safin's HC slam resume. Also, Safin never got given the kind, **** easy draws Nadal has been given over the years. Safin's slam wins are way more respectable as his draws were much tougher. Unless you beleieve beating severly post prime Federer, Verdasco and Djokovic is more impressive than humiliating prime Sampras, beating Federer at his very best and Hewitt at his very best.




Like I've already stated, only an idiot would ignore injuries. It's not like Safin hasn't proven himself over the years for being slam winning material :roll:.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Where are these HC slams Safin would have won if not for injury? Certainly people don't think that just b/c he beat Federer once in 5 sets at AO means that he would've done it again at the USO or AO. At most Safin missed out on 1 slam, and that's stretching it. 2005 USO possibly, but anything after 2006 is stretching it b/c Fed was near unbeatable on HC in slams - nay, literally unbeatable in HC slams 06-07. THen you have 08 AO, which even then Safin would have been past his prime and not a shoe in to win, and 08 USO. Then 09 we all know Safin was donezo. So what are these magical HC slams Safin would have won if not for injury?

 

[RPM Blast]

Where are these HC slams Safin would have won if not for injury? Certainly people don't think that just b/c he beat Federer once in 5 sets at AO means that he would've done it again at the USO or AO. At most Safin missed out on 1 slam, and that's stretching it. 2005 USO possibly, but anything after 2006 is stretching it b/c Fed was near unbeatable on HC in slams - nay, literally unbeatable in HC slams 06-07. THen you have 08 AO, which even then Safin would have been past his prime and not a shoe in to win, and 08 USO. Then 09 we all know Safin was donezo. So what are these magical HC slams Safin would have won if not for injury?

Guys like Djokovic and JMDP were able to take slams on hard courts in recent years. It's hardly a stretch to say Safin would win more than his fair share of hard court slams if he wasn't injured every other (and most) year(s). Federer's level in 2005 was his highest. He was playign great all court tennis. Safin was able to beat Federer in that period and was the only player to do so from years 2004-2007. 'Once' you say, well, that's one more time than anyone else managed in those years.


Safin would have been a contender for any hard court slam he would have entered after AO 2005 if he was fully fit.



It's not stretching it to say Safin would win more slams. Many more. he was certainly capable. Using the 'Federer was unbeatable in 06 and 07 on hard' is nonsense. 2006 he nearly lost to Tommy Haas and Davydenko in AO, and Roddick with 0 weapons and Ball basher Blake were able to take it to Federer at the US Open. Therefore Safin with much more game than all of those players mentioned would certainly have chances. 2007 Safin would be a contender and would have a chance as Federer wasn't convincing in the final and his SF match with Roddick was overrated. US Open 2007 again, Safin if fully fit and focused would still be a threat.



I'm not saying Safin would win everything. You don't know what would happen. All I know is, that Safin was good enough to take anyone down on hard court if he was fully fit.

 

[TheTruth]

They are weak opposition. You failed to acknwledge the fact Federer routinely put beatdowns on guys like Hewitt (2 slams) Roddick (1 slam) and occassionally guys like Safin and Nalbandian who aren't pushovers. Those players other than Soderling you mentioned don't beleive full stop, let alone against the greatest player ever. Whether you like it or not Federer dominated some very good players even in slam finals.

I agree. Rafa has been Fed's only challenger, and if Fed didn't have a challenger it would only strengthen the weak era argument and dilute Federer's wins, imo. Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin were only relevant from 2001-2003, so where is the great opposition Federer dominated? OTOH you say they were weak, and at the same time you say they were good.

Yeah, Federer didn't fight in his matches, that would explain why he won pretty much every 5th setter he played in 04-07 in his dominant years other than his AO 2005 SF match. Federer just didn't fight did he :roll:

Fed's 5th set record isn't that good, it's around 50%, that's not great for his stature. And, I'm not the only one who didn't see Fed as a fighter, plenty of people didn't/don't.

Um, the quality of the Wimbledon 2008 final was good, but not great. The only reason it gets talked about is because it was Federer and Nadal. I guarentee you, Federer and Nadal could play an error filled match and it would still get talked up and remembered above the other classic matches not involving both Federer and Nadal. Ironically I beleive the AO 2009 SF between Verdasco and Nadal and the AO 2005 SF between Federer and Safin were both much, much better matches in terms of quality and even drama.


That's your opinion. Wimbledon 2008 was some of the best tennis I've seen, and I've watched it over and over. Those two matches you referenced were great as well, but it still doesn't diminish Wimby, 08 in my eyes.

Debateable. Federer's level was incredibly high before Nadal came into his own on hard courts and grass. Unless you're saying Federer's Wimbledon 2008level surpasses his 2004/05/06 level........LOL!

^^^
I never said his level wasn't high, but it was hard to gauge when he was playing weak players. It wasn't until he got a challenger that you could truly judge his level. How can you get a good analysis when he was playing people who even today don't have the heart and wherewithal to stay in a match and fight till the finish?

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I just said I wasn't a big follower of Fed, I saw him here and there, but I wasn't into him because of the poor competition I felt he was dealing with. Then, when he got worthy competition it was easier to see his strengths.

To me, that's like Serena beating up on the tour (2004-2007) without Clijsters, Henin, and other troubling players. It would be easy to say she was great, but you also have to look at the competition, at least I do.

 

[tudwell]

The reality is this thread is being done a year late. A decade runs from 0 to 9.. I.e. First day of 2000 to the last day of 2009. Then the first day of 2010 to the last day of 2019. So, in that respect the 2nd part of your comment makes complete sense.

For those who don't agree - which I'm sure there will be some... Think of it this way: how old are you when you're born? You're not 1, but you're in your first year. When you turn 1 it means 1 whole year has elapsed. Immediately from then on you are in your 2nd year. Grouping years is the same: they started at year 0...1, 2, 3... up until the last moment before it turned to 10 that was the 1st decade. Thereafter it is a new decade. 2011 is the 2nd year of this decade.

(N.B. In fairness to the OP, maybe he/she did just mean the past ten year period up until the end of 2010 and wasn't implying that the decade started in 2001)

Well, if you think about it, there was no year zero. It goes 2 B.C.E., 1 B.C.E., 1 C.E., 2 C.E., etc. So by your method of grouping decades the first decade of the Common Era would either be nine years long (1 C.E. - 9 C.E.) or extend back into the B.C.E. years (1 B.C.E. - 9 C.E.). 2001-2010 is a much more logical grouping than 2000-2009.

 

[RPM Blast]

Rafa has been Federer's only challeneger consistently I'll agree with that, but to say Safin, Hewitt and Roddick were only relevant from 2001-2003 is laughable as Safin beat Federer in 2005 (not relevant), and Roddick pushed Federer hard in quite a few slams, Hewitt also made a few good runs past 2003 also so that statement is completely untrue.



In Federer's prime 04-07 he rarely lost 5 set matches. I never said over the course of his career. Idiot needs to start reading my posts.



Wimbledon 2008 was good tennis. But certainly not great. If you're willing to say Federer played at his highest level in that match then be my guest.....You'll just look like a nimrod who never watched Federer in his prime....Oh yeah, you didn't did you. So you can't really be the judge of how good Federer CAN play compared to his 2008 level. You are more likely to say 08 was the best match ever because Nadal is your favourite player.

 

[TheTruth]

Rafa has been Federer's only challeneger consistently I'll agree with that, but to say Safin, Hewitt and Roddick were only relevant from 2001-2003 is laughable as Safin beat Federer in 2005 (not relevant), and Roddick pushed Federer hard in quite a few slams, Hewitt also made a few good runs past 2003 also so that statement is completely untrue.



In Federer's prime 04-07 he rarely lost 5 set matches. I never said over the course of his career. Idiot needs to start reading my posts.


Wimbledon 2008 was good tennis. But certainly not great. If you're willing to say Federer played at his highest level in that match then be my guest.....You'll just look like a nimrod who never watched Federer in his prime....Oh yeah, you didn't did you. So you can't really be the judge of how good Federer CAN play compared to his 2008 level. You are more likely to say 08 was the best match ever because Nadal is your favourite player.

OK. We're done here.

 

[Manus Domini]

Safin has 4 slam finals on hard. I don't see how Nadal having a couple of slam semis and QF's can give him equality to Safin's HC slam resume. Also, Safin never got given the kind, **** easy draws Nadal has been given over the years. Safin's slam wins are way more respectable as his draws were much tougher. Unless you beleieve beating severly post prime Federer, Verdasco and Djokovic is more impressive than humiliating prime Sampras, beating Federer at his very best and Hewitt at his very best.




Like I've already stated, only an idiot would ignore injuries. It's not like Safin hasn't proven himself over the years for being slam winning material :roll:.

QFT

Safin is made for hard courts. Tell me that Safin is worse on HC than Nadal? They are both playing Fed btw, with Safin against Fed in Fed's prime.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Guys like Djokovic and JMDP were able to take slams on hard courts in recent years. It's hardly a stretch to say Safin would win more than his fair share of hard court slams if he wasn't injured every other (and most) year(s). Federer's level in 2005 was his highest. He was playign great all court tennis. Safin was able to beat Federer in that period and was the only player to do so from years 2004-2007. 'Once' you say, well, that's one more time than anyone else managed in those years.


Safin would have been a contender for any hard court slam he would have entered after AO 2005 if he was fully fit.

It's not stretching it to say Safin would win more slams. Many more. he was certainly capable. Using the 'Federer was unbeatable in 06 and 07 on hard' is nonsense. 2006 he nearly lost to Tommy Haas and Davydenko in AO, and Roddick with 0 weapons and Ball basher Blake were able to take it to Federer at the US Open. Therefore Safin with much more game than all of those players mentioned would certainly have chances. 2007 Safin would be a contender and would have a chance as Federer wasn't convincing in the final and his SF match with Roddick was overrated. US Open 2007 again, Safin if fully fit and focused would still be a threat.

I'm not saying Safin would win everything. You don't know what would happen. All I know is, that Safin was good enough to take anyone down on hard court if he was fully fit.

That Safin win over Federer is one of the most overrated wins in tennis history. It baffles me how people say that was a 'peak' Fed or a Fed 'at his best'. That was probably not even in the top 10 of Fed's best performances of his career. Yet all I've heard from Safintards since then is crap like Safin at his best beats Fed at his best,pure nonsense.

You know how many times Safin beat Federer? Twice. Even before that match Safin had lost 6 of 7 matches to a pre-peak Federer, and went on after that match to lose the next 4 matches. So yes, it is a stretch to say a guy that was 2-10 against Fed would've just won again against him even if he was healthy. Even Djokovic has more HC slam wins over Fed than Safin.

 

[abmk]

^^^

To me, that's like Serena beating up on the tour (2004-2007) without Clijsters, Henin, and other troubling players. It would be easy to say she was great, but you also have to look at the competition, at least I do.

LOL ! wut ??? ... I don't follow women's tennis that much, but I do know serena didn't win that much in that period ...she did better before that ( 2002-2003) and after that (2008-10) ...But carry on with your ignorance-filled statements !

 

[abmk]

^^^
I never said his level wasn't high, but it was hard to gauge when he was playing weak players. It wasn't until he got a challenger that you could truly judge his level. How can you get a good analysis when he was playing people who even today don't have the heart and wherewithal to stay in a match and fight till the finish?

I'm not sure you read my post correctly. I just said I wasn't a big follower of Fed, I saw him here and there, but I wasn't into him because of the poor competition I felt he was dealing with. Then, when he got worthy competition it was easier to see his strengths.

when you haven't even observed keenly, how the hell did you arrive at the conclusion that it was a "weak" era ...oh LOL, wait .....

I agree. Rafa has been Fed's only challenger, and if Fed didn't have a challenger it would only strengthen the weak era argument and dilute Federer's wins, imo. Hewitt, Roddick, and Safin were only relevant from 2001-2003, so where is the great opposition Federer dominated? OTOH you say they were weak, and at the same time you say they were good.

bwahahaha , I can't stop laughing at the bold part !!!!!

hewitt was as good , if not better in 2004-05 as he was in 2001-02 ( 2003 , he was in a slump ), just that he was stopped by federer so many times in that period ( his record minus fed is better than what it was in 2001-02 actually )

safin was the only one to beat fed at a non-clay slam at his peak in AO 2005 ( 2004-07 ) , was a finalist at 2004 AO as well beating agassi,roddick along the way ...he was pretty much relevant from 2004-mid 2005

roddick - this is the funniest of them all !!!!!! his peak only started in 2003 ...has been top 10 for most time since then ... made 3 wimby finals, 2 AO SFs , 1 USO F after that and won many titles .. he was only relevant from 2001-2003 :lol :lol:

But continue to entertain us with posts like these

 

[RPM Blast]

That Safin win over Federer is one of the most overrated wins in tennis history. It baffles me how people say that was a 'peak' Fed or a Fed 'at his best'. That was probably not even in the top 10 of Fed's best performances of his career. Yet all I've heard from Safintards since then is crap like Safin at his best beats Fed at his best,pure nonsense.

You know how many times Safin beat Federer? Twice. Even before that match Safin had lost 6 of 7 matches to a pre-peak Federer, and went on after that match to lose the next 4 matches. So yes, it is a stretch to say a guy that was 2-10 against Fed would've just won again against him even if he was healthy.

I can go ahead and say Safin played much better at the US Open 2000. And please give me at least 10 matches when Federer played much better. Providing Safin on his a-game is tougher competition for Federer than anyone not named Nadal.





So according to JBF#1's wisdom - Safin's win doesn't count against Federer because Federer played possibly his 11th best match in a slam ever. Great logic........I guess some of Nadal's wins, JMDP's, Djokovic's, Soderling's and Berdych's win(s) don't count either as he played 1000 x crapper in those matches he's lost.

Even Djokovic has more HC slam wins over Fed than Safin.

Well, this pretty much sums up who I'm dealing with doesn't it..........



Djokovic played Federer who was clearly effected by monoglandular fever. Safin never got that luxuary of playing Federer who was severly ill. Yeah, beating severly post prime Federer at the US Open 2010 is a bigger achievement than beating Federer at the AO 2005. Because deap down in side we all know Federer in 2010 was playing his best tennis ever........LOL.


Djokovic's prime coincided with out of prime Federer. Safin in his prime faced Federer in his prime twice. Lost once and beat him once. Although it's likely if he wasn't a zombie in that final he COULD (notice the 'COULD', not 'WOULD') have won that match in the form he showed against Roddick (#1), Agassi and Blake etc etc etc. I'd like to see Djokovic beat Federer in 2005.





For the record, out of prime Safin on his worst surace dominated in prime Djokovic in his best year on a surface he is very comfortable on (he made the semifinals in 2007 just a year before and pushed Nadal (the beat GC player that year) in queens a fortnight before Wimbledon 2008. Safin was also able to push Federer as much as guys like Murray ever have in a slam that year.




It's obvious to me you dislike Safin. You put down his achievements like saying 'yeah, feddy didn't play at his all time best so his win is garbage bla bla bla'. But at the end of the day the guy had game to win many more slams. But definately a great career for someone so injury prone.

 

[dandelion_smiley]

Shouldn't it be 2000-2009? I thought that was a decade, well unless you wanna include Nadal's 2010 US Open title bad.

Might as well make a poll - "the best hard court player of 2008-2010)

Best hard court players in 2000-2009 as far as achievements are concerned:

1) Federer 8 Slam titles (+ 2 finals), 5 Masters Cup titles, 12 Masters titles, 44 titles in total

2) Agassi 3 Slam titles (+ 2 finals), 6 Masters titles, 14 titles total

3) Safin 2 Slam titles (+ 2 finals), 2 Masters titles, 10 titles on hard courts

Players with 1 Slam on hard courts:

Hewitt, Nadal, Sampras, Roddick, Djokovic, Del Potro, Johansson

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

I can go ahead and say Safin played much better at the US Open 2000. And please give me at least 10 matches when Federer played much better. Providing Safin on his a-game is tougher competition for Federer than anyone not named Nadal.

So according to JBF#1's wisdom - Safin's win doesn't count against Federer because Federer played possibly his 11th best match in a slam ever. Great logic........I guess some of Nadal's wins, JMDP's, Djokovic's, Soderling's and Berdych's win(s) don't count either as he played 1000 x crapper in those matches he's lost.

No. You missed my point entirely. Safin fans on here like to troll and say that Safin at his best beat Federer 'at his best' and use that 2005 AO match as the example. Well how come Safin still has a 2-10 record vs Federer,if he's such a Federer killer? Safin had to play one of if not the best match of his career to beat Fed, who despite what Safintards say wasn't playing one of the best matches of his career, and still had a MP to win it.

So no, that match alone isn't enough proof to say Safin would have beaten Fed again in a slam, even if he was healthy. 2-10 career h2h says that Fed would have beaten Safin more often than not. The odds of Safin playing the level he did AO 05 again are slim, even if he'd remained healthy.

For the record I never said the win didn't count, just that it gets overhyped on here by Safintards who troll crap like "Safin is the only man to beat two GOATs, Safin at his best beats Fed at his best look at AO 05, etc" of course the win counts but it gets grossly overhyped to troll Safin as some potential 10 time slam champ if he wasn't injured. So I ask again, what slams on HC would Safin had taken from Federer, a guy he had a 2-10 h2h with for his career?

 

[rovex]

I can go ahead and say Safin played much better at the US Open 2000. And please give me at least 10 matches when Federer played much better. Providing Safin on his a-game is tougher competition for Federer than anyone not named Nadal.





So according to JBF#1's wisdom - Safin's win doesn't count against Federer because Federer played possibly his 11th best match in a slam ever. Great logic........I guess some of Nadal's wins, JMDP's, Djokovic's, Soderling's and Berdych's win(s) don't count either as he played 1000 x crapper in those matches he's lost.










Well, this pretty much sums up who I'm dealing with doesn't it..........



Djokovic played Federer who was clearly effected by monoglandular fever. Safin never got that luxuary of playing Federer who was severly ill. Yeah, beating severly post prime Federer at the US Open 2010 is a bigger achievement than beating Federer at the AO 2005. Because deap down in side we all know Federer in 2010 was playing his best tennis ever........LOL.


Djokovic's prime coincided with out of prime Federer. Safin in his prime faced Federer in his prime twice. Lost once and beat him once. Although it's likely if he wasn't a zombie in that final he COULD (notice the 'COULD', not 'WOULD') have won that match in the form he showed against Roddick (#1), Agassi and Blake etc etc etc. I'd like to see Djokovic beat Federer in 2005.





For the record, out of prime Safin on his worst surace dominated in prime Djokovic in his best year on a surface he is very comfortable on (he made the semifinals in 2007 just a year before and pushed Nadal (the beat GC player that year) in queens a fortnight before Wimbledon 2008. Safin was also able to push Federer as much as guys like Murray ever have in a slam that year.




It's obvious to me you dislike Safin. You put down his achievements like saying 'yeah, feddy didn't play at his all time best so his win is garbage bla bla bla'. But at the end of the day the guy had game to win many more slams. But definately a great career for someone so injury prone.

Anaconda is back and excessively trolling in his usual manner

 

[RPM Blast]

No. You missed my point entirely. Safin fans on here like to troll and say that Safin at his best beat Federer 'at his best' and use that 2005 AO match as the example. Well how come Safin still has a 2-10 record vs Federer,if he's such a Federer killer? Safin had to play one of if not the best match of his career to beat Fed, who despite what Safintards say wasn't playing one of the best matches of his career, and still had a MP to win it.

So no, that match alone isn't enough proof to say Safin would have beaten Fed again in a slam, even if he was healthy. 2-10 career h2h says that Fed would have beaten Safin more often than not. The odds of Safin playing the level he did AO 05 again are slim, even if he'd remained healthy.

For the record I never said the win didn't count, just that it gets overhyped on here by Safintards who troll crap like "Safin is the only man to beat two GOATs, Safin at his best beats Fed at his best look at AO 05, etc" of course the win counts but it gets grossly overhyped to troll Safin as some potential 10 time slam champ if he wasn't injured. So I ask again, what slams on HC would Safin had taken from Federer, a guy he had a 2-10 h2h with for his career?

Does it really hurt you that much that Safin fans say things like that? The guy was no slouch on hard courts and beat everyone there was on hard courts. In slams none the less. Sampras at US Open and AO, Hewitt at AO, Agassi multipule times, Federer, Roddick (when he was #1). I could go on, but on his day Safin was unstoppable. The only two people who would have chances to win (or win) would be Federer and Nadal, and Safin would still have more than his fair share of wins against them.


But, JBF#1 comes after Safin fans for being the only posters for saying Safin at his best beats everyone. Not that anyone else like Nalbandian fans (and more) don't say that. So go cry me a river.


So please, I'm still waiting, please tell me 10 Federer performances; keeping in mind Safin playing at his best is tougher competition than Hewitt and Roddick suicide bombing to the net, and other zero slam wonders?



Which slams does Safin take? I don't know. But it's safe to say Safin of US Open 2000 and AO 2004/2005 at least makes the final in any hard court/carpet tournament he walks into.




That Safin/Federer AO 2005 is proof that Safin can beat prime Federer at a slam. Unless that match didn't happen. Which I'm sure it did happen. No the odds are not slim that Safin wouldn't play like that again. Here's a tip mate; Go WATCH SOME TENNIS. Safin has played more than his fair share of excellent tournaments thoughout his career. Even the ones he didn't win, for example AO 2004. Where he was ranked 83, didn't play for a year and still made your boy Blake look like a chump, beat in form Roddick at his best and Agassi, only to lose to Federer who was on a mission that tournament. Keep in mind Safin still made a match of it and played two 5 setters and four 4 setters. So Safin was capable of making a run out of the blue.

 

[jamesblakefan#1]

Anaconda is back and excessively trolling in his usual manner

Yes, that's the guy, couldn't put the name with the posts, but that's definitely that major dovchenozzle Anaconda back w/ his usual Safin groveling.

And Snake boy off the top of my head, Fed played better in last year's AO final, 09 RG final, 06 Rome final, 06 YEC final, 04 USO final, 07 AO SF vs Roddick, 09 Wimbledon SF, 09 Cincy final, 10 WTF vs Djoker, 08 USO final. I could go on, but the point is made - that Safin match was NOT Federer at his best. And the point still stands that Safin beat Fed ONCE and lost every other time before and after that match to Fed in slams, usually convincingly.

 

[RPM Blast]

Yes, that's the guy, couldn't put the name with the posts, but that's definitely that major dovchenozzle Anaconda back w/ his usual Safin groveling.

So you result into saying I'm an alternative user, along with Rovex 'Verdasco is a god with 5 ATP titles but Roddick with 30 is overrated' idiot. Fix up.

 

[RPM Blast]

Yes, that's the guy, couldn't put the name with the posts, but that's definitely that major dovchenozzle Anaconda back w/ his usual Safin groveling.

And Snake boy off the top of my head, Fed played better in last year's AO final, 09 RG final, 06 Rome final, 06 YEC final, 04 USO final, 07 AO SF vs Roddick, 09 Wimbledon SF, 09 Cincy final, 10 WTF vs Djoker, 08 USO final. I could go on, but the point is made - that Safin match was NOT Federer at his best. And the point still stands that Safin beat Fed ONCE and lost every other time before and after that match to Fed in slams, usually convincingly.

Safin AO 2005 mode is better competition than Murray, Soderling, Blake, Hewitt,Roddick in suicide net play and Djokovic. So no. Federer came up against guys who aren't difficult for him to beat.

 

[Bobby Jr]

Well, if you think about it, there was no year zero. It goes 2 B.C.E., 1 B.C.E., 1 C.E., 2 C.E., etc.

The years we use now were calculated retrospectively - they weren't used at the time. In any case, that debate is irrelevant - time was elapsing regardless of the dating method. The starting point of "time" wasn't 1.

It's basically confusing elapsed time with the period of time in progress (in whole numbers). No-one says their baby is 1 until they have elapsed a whole year. But, from the moment they are born, they are in their first year.

Ditto..When midnight turns over to the next day it isn't 1 o'clock... it goes to 12.01, 12.02 etc - substituting for zero. They are, in effect, one and the same. Years work the same - they mark elapsed time, not time in progress.

2001-2010 is a much more logical grouping than 2000-2009.

It's not. That's exactly why I made the post I did.