Gullyfoyle
Rookie
So, your saying Federer tanked the gold medal singles match, you deluded fool.
A better grass court player - Murray or Djokovic
- Thread starter timnz
- Start date
So, your saying Federer tanked the gold medal singles match, you deluded fool.
Quite demonstrably.
Compare his performance at Wimbledon, to his Olympics F performance.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
He did not,but Olympics and Wimbledon are not comparable at all.
BVSlam
Professional
I don't understand why people are upset about Djokovic losing this poll. What is even the point of discussing surface comparisons between someone with 12 slams and someone with 3 slams who is constantly beaten by the guy with 12 slams?
Nevertheless, at least Murray has won their two matches on grass as well without dropping a set so it's not completely without merit to say Murray is a better grass-courter. But again, Djokovic is in general the far better player so him winning more slams on a less preferred surface than the guy with 3 slams on his most preferred surface is not strange. Again, Murray uses the surface better than Djokovic in my opinion, that doesn't mean his base game is near that of Djokovic.
I mean Nadal isn't a great grass courter in the sense of using the surface but his base game transcends so many players that he can win Wimbledon and many players more comfortable on grass can't. Fed's clay game is similar, it messes up his backhand which is stronger on low-bouncing surfaces, he can't dominate with his serve as much and needs more patience in his aggression, but his base game transcends that so he's much more successful on the surface than players with a more clay-suited game.
Don't see this poll as a dig at Djokovic (not everything is). Actually, it's a compliment about how good his base game is that he's been able to outperform Murray at Wimbledon.
Nevertheless, at least Murray has won their two matches on grass as well without dropping a set so it's not completely without merit to say Murray is a better grass-courter. But again, Djokovic is in general the far better player so him winning more slams on a less preferred surface than the guy with 3 slams on his most preferred surface is not strange. Again, Murray uses the surface better than Djokovic in my opinion, that doesn't mean his base game is near that of Djokovic.
I mean Nadal isn't a great grass courter in the sense of using the surface but his base game transcends so many players that he can win Wimbledon and many players more comfortable on grass can't. Fed's clay game is similar, it messes up his backhand which is stronger on low-bouncing surfaces, he can't dominate with his serve as much and needs more patience in his aggression, but his base game transcends that so he's much more successful on the surface than players with a more clay-suited game.
Don't see this poll as a dig at Djokovic (not everything is). Actually, it's a compliment about how good his base game is that he's been able to outperform Murray at Wimbledon.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
No, your delusional, you're in the Fed never lost a match when fit camp.. deluded.
I'm in the prime Fed very rarely lost an important match when fit camp yes.
His only big losses came to Nadal, Nalbandian/Safin/Del Potro, Djokovic and Kuerten. All of these before 2010 when his prime ended.
Go back and rewatch the Wimbledon, then the Olympics Final of 2012. Federer was half the player in the latter.
uliks
Banned
Djokovic was losing polls before here on TTW to Peak Dimitrov or Peak Kyrgios, so why not lose this one to Murray who himself is very respectable grass player, very comparable grass level to that one of Djokovic at least. But one thing is for certain, it's better to have 3 titles instead of 2 and to lose polls here on TTW, than the other way around...
Last edited:
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
If your Fed and have as many Wimbledon titles as he has, then to say the Olympic singles medal means nothing to him is rubbish, why even bother to the point of reaching the final, you tank in round two and go home.
No, it's an excuse on your part for a loss, a loss that meant a lot to Roger, I'm no fan of Roger, but he does have my respect and I for one don't believe he has ever considered tanking a match.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
Again,he has never tanked,but Olympics are just not so special tournament ( as much as some would like ) and Wimbledon is just the greatest. That’s like comparing Federer and Murray or Djokovic and Murray,impossible!
Noelan
Legend
Expect the next two threads "who is better clay and HC player between Djokovic and Murray"?
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
So you're saying he didn't try, again I say your delusional.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
I think that you do not know what you are talking about.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
Think it's you that doesn't know what your saying, reading your quoted post, Roger entered a tournament that he had no interest in, despite one of his career stated goals was individual Olympic gold.
And though he didn't tank the match, he didn't try too hard!
Tell me in which universe that isn't tanking.
Noelan
Legend
It seems that you never undarstand anything when Djokovic obvious undermining at this place is concerned.
roger presley
Hall of Fame
Never said that he didn’t try,read carefully for a change. Don’t wanna go any further with this,cause you’re stupidity is annoying. You can’t even read the text right.Goodbye!
C
Charlie
Guest
Murray of course. Let's not forget more people here backed peak Haas against peak Djokovic on grass so comparing Djokovic to some players who actually achieved something on grass is really a waste of time.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
You said he didn't tank the match, so therefore he tried to win the match, but didn't and lost to the superior man on the day, you cannot have it both ways, the Olympics have always been important for Roger, maybe not for you, but face it you are merely a fan, and it's up to the players who do attend for no ranking points or cash to decide what is and isn't important to them, but it's not hard to understand that a player attending the Olympics wants to play and win especially the top guys who go into every match with that one goal and expectation in mind.
D
Deleted member 733170
Guest
As tempting as it is to vote for Murray, Djokovic is the correct answer.
Yes, Murray won the 2012 Olympics against an exhausted Federer who went for 4 hours against Del Potro the day before.
Yes, Murray won the 2012 Olympics against an exhausted Federer who went for 4 hours against Del Potro the day before.
H_Richardson
Semi-Pro
You could argue that he didn't play well because he was tired, but there is no way in hell that an athlete would tank an olympic final, that is completely delusional.
BVSlam
Professional
It seems that you always care way too much about Djokovic's popularity on this site, I think that is the real issue here and not my understanding of anything, my friend.It seems that you never undarstand anything when Djokovic obvious undermining at this place is concerned.
Not to mention I rarely post about stuff like that anyway. And that came across as a little dramatic, we are not these players' personal bodyguards.Just enjoy watching a legend like Djokovic play, the guy is popular enough and this is just one little site in a huge world. I'm more of a Federer and Nadal fan but I don't care about "Arrog***erer", "weak era", "23-11", "clay-skewed", "moonballer" or "injury faker". It's not like these two players are free of hate here and you are just as much a part of that as others are hating on Djokovic.
Or do you think this is absolute bull****? Well, whatever. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand the incredible importance of player popularity on a tennis forum.
skynyrd1611
Rookie
If they were to play (again) on grass, I fancy Murray. However, i'd consider 3 titles at a slam confirmation of being an all time great at the event. Until Murray wins another, id give it to Djokovic.
Noelan
Legend
Its not about popularity but reality. Realty is disorting every single day here.It seems that you always care way too much about Djokovic's popularity on this site, I think that is the real issue here and not my understanding of anything, my friend.
Just enjoy watching a legend like Djokovic play, the guy is popular enough and this is just one little site in a huge world. I'm more of a Federer and Nadal fan but I don't care about "Arrog***erer", "weak era", "23-11", "clay-skewed", "moonballer" or "injury faker". It's not like these two players are free of hate here and you are just as much a part of that as others are hating on Djokovic.
Or do you think this is absolute bull****? Well, whatever. I guess I'm not smart enough to understand the incredible importance of player popularity on a tennis forum.
Generaly speaking your'e solid poster, just noticed that you always have to say somethng when Djokovic and criticizm are on . And believe me you wouldn't react that way if one of your favs are subject of such undermining day in and day out.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Actually, 2 days before (the semis were played on 3 August.The final was played on the 5th).
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
Mere details man, mere details.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
I don't think so. 2 days between matches means a lot more extra rest and time to recover from a long match than just 1. Fedfans often keep trying to spread the myth that the Delpo match took place only the day before the final.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
Guess you didn't get the sarcasm in my reply, very Scottish of me...I don't think so. 2 days is a lot more extra rest and time to recover from a long match than just 1. Fedfans often keep trying to spread the myth that the Delpo match took place only the day before the final.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Guess you didn't get the sarcasm in my reply, very Scottish of me...
Obviously missed your smilie.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
That was grade one sarcasm and I didn't deem it necessary, will smilie them in futureObviously missed your smilie.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
That Olympic Gold medal means about as much as a Queens Club title over prime Pete Sampras.
And no, Roger did not tank the match, but he wasn't at his best either. I don't know if he'd have won but he would not have gotten stomped that badly if he were at his best. I think Murray is a great player but not many people can stand up to Roger when he is playing on all cylinders on grass, and even though I like Murray, I can't see him finishing the job otherwise which is why the Wimbledon match is a good indicator in my opinion.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Roger was nearly 31 years of age though, Mainad. Recovery is not as easy at that age, especially considering his mileage.I don't think so. 2 days between matches means a lot more extra rest and time to recover from a long match than just 1. Fedfans often keep trying to spread the myth that the Delpo match took place only the day before the final.
He did not tank the match though and Murray won fair and square, but I wouldn't use it as an indicator for some hypothetical do-dah, ect. That is all I am saying.
mike danny
Bionic Poster
As of now Djokovic. 3 Wimb titles + one successful title defense.
If Murray defends his Wimb title next year, then we'll talk.
If Murray defends his Wimb title next year, then we'll talk.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
That was grade one sarcasm and I didn't deem it necessary, will smilie them in future
Probably my fault. I should have guessed what you meant from your earlier posts.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
This is the same kinda guy who believes Hewitt is only as good as David Ferrer or Tim Henman. I thought his opinion on Murray was better but he isn't giving him a fair go either. Don't waste your time.
Gullyfoyle
Rookie
Sing through the nose like Dylan.. " you are right from your side, and I am right from mine- we're just to many mornings and a thousand miles behind "
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Come on, Fed's normally as fit as a fiddle (except for this year). A day's rest between matches should be ample for a player of his legendary stamina and it was only 1 tough match he had, not a whole week of them. Murray is a few months off 30 and played TWO tough 3 setters in the week leading up to the WTF final. They're all fit and can do it. No need to keep bending over backwards to make excuses for Fed all the time (a favourite pastime of many fans on here). He doesn't make any excuses. Neither should they.
TheMuzziah
Hall of Fame
abmk
Bionic Poster
if you removed those Murray tinted glasses and actually watched the match, federer was tired, moving slowly and played like sh*t.
Murray was in better form than fed at the Olympics and may have won regardless. But it'd have been a much closer match otherwise.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Hmmm... Someone who loses in the first week to the likes of Darcis and Brown?
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
The difference between Murray and Federer in terms of mileage is easy to see. Murray can play better at an older age because he hasn't got as much wear and tear as Federer. And the wear and tear I am describing isn't necessarily on his body, but his mind. Being No. 1 for so long has to have taken its toll.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
If Nadal made the final he would beat Fed.
jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
Did they bring back the Challenge Round in 2015? I could swear Djokovic came out on top of a draw with 128 players, but I may be misremembering it
Mainad
Bionic Poster
Actually, I have watched the match and I thought Fed played quite well especially at the start. Maybe not at his absolute best but well enough. Maybe you should take off your own tinted glasses and stop bending over backwards to make excuses for him where really none are needed.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Never said he didn't, but let's not pretend he beat some great competition for his titles. And don't want to hear BS about it "still being Federer" or I will pull out that card with Agassi/Sampras/whoever.
abmk
Bionic Poster
You are one hell of a biased, blinded Murray fan.
Federer had 24 W to 31 UEs in that match. -7. Negative winners to UE ratio. How many *****' times do you see that on grass ?
That's downright sh*t x infinity play.
Its like saying Murray played maybe not at his absolute best, but well enough in the WTF 14 RR match where he lost 0-6,1-6.
Now lets see if you have the guts to admit that you were wrong.
NatF
Bionic Poster
I've had this conversation with Mainad so many times man
Federer was 62 winners and 38 UE's in the Wimbledon final, compared to Murray's 46 winners and 25 errors.
Federer was 24 winners and 31 UE's in the Olympics final, comapred to Murrays 27 winners and 17 errors.
Murray's stats were very similar, Federer's were downright awful - especially for his standards and compared to 4 weeks ago. Murray only served at 51% in the Olympics final as well (compared to 56% at Wimbledon), it was basically the same sort of level as his Wimbledon final only this time he faced a below par Federer.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I've had this conversation with Mainad so many times man
Federer was 62 winners and 38 UE's in the Wimbledon final, compared to Murray's 46 winners and 25 errors.
Federer was 24 winners and 31 UE's in the Olympics final, comapred to Murrays 27 winners and 17 errors.
Murray's stats were very similar, Federer's were downright awful - especially for his standards and compared to 4 weeks ago. Murray only served at 51% in the Olympics final as well (compared to 56% at Wimbledon), it was basically the same sort of level as his Wimbledon final only this time he faced a below par Federer.
yeah, I agree ...
Here @Mainad , something else that you might understand through your Murray tinted glasses :
24 W to 37 UE vs dimitrov in wimbledon 14 QF ...Murray might not have been at his best , but played well enough, right ?
roger presley
Hall of Fame
Agree!I've had this conversation with Mainad so many times man
Federer was 62 winners and 38 UE's in the Wimbledon final, compared to Murray's 46 winners and 25 errors.
Federer was 24 winners and 31 UE's in the Olympics final, comapred to Murrays 27 winners and 17 errors.
Murray's stats were very similar, Federer's were downright awful - especially for his standards and compared to 4 weeks ago. Murray only served at 51% in the Olympics final as well (compared to 56% at Wimbledon), it was basically the same sort of level as his Wimbledon final only this time he faced a below par Federer.
Mainad
Bionic Poster
31 UEs is high but by no means the highest number we've ever seen. Djokovic had over 100 UEs in a match with Simon last year and Murray had over 50 recently too.
I've already conceded that Fed wasn't necessarily playing his best. It's your contention that he was so exhausted that he could barely walk and had to be ferried around the court on a stretcher that makes me laugh and continues to do so!
