Another tough Slam for Novak

Lew II

Hall of Fame
The era is so weak that the big 3 are basically guaranteed to waltz to the semis/finals if they play decently. Their only competition are declined versions of each other.

Obviously 2003-2007 would have less big 3 meetings. Djokovic and Nadal were still very young then. From 1980-1990, there were 0 big 3 meetings, is that a weak era too?
There were other ATGs.

Since 2003 the only ATGs were the Big4
 

robthai

Hall of Fame
If Federer wins is it a stronger slam for him compared to any slam Novak has won? Its harder to win slams against all time great players like Djokovic and Nadal back to back when you are almost 38.
 

ghostofMecir

Hall of Fame
If Federer wins is it a stronger slam for him compared to any slam Novak has won? Its harder to win slams against all time great players like Djokovic and Nadal back to back when you are almost 38.
Since 1980, 30 year old+ ATGs have a 7W-31L record against younger ATGs in slam QFs/SFs/Fs (10-32 if you count Murray as an ATG, Federer with 6 of those wins). 30+ year olds don’t win slam matches vs. younger ATGs. Beating two back to back would be something unheard of since the early ‘70s era.
 

MS_07

Rookie
@Lew II

1. kohli
2. kudla
3. hurkacz
4. humbert
5. la goff
6. RBA

and you call this a tough draw :censored::sick:

:-D:laughing::-D:laughing:

awww .... your GOAT candidate can't take this ?
 

Tennisbg

Rookie
Hewitt has beaten Sampras and Federer on grass multiple times and you ignore him.

The reason he's called a "Big 4" member is because the media want to push a European-white guy into the mix - doesn't mean he belongs there.
Mostly the British media actually. Almost no one outside that country cares about Murray.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Since 1980, 30 year old+ ATGs have a 7W-31L record against younger ATGs in slam QFs/SFs/Fs (10-32 if you count Murray as an ATG, Federer with 6 of those wins). 30+ year olds don’t win slam matches vs. younger ATGs. Beating two back to back would be something unheard of since the early ‘70s era.
I think Fed already did that beating Wawrinka/Nadal at AO 17. I think Wawrinka can be counted as Murray and Wawrinka is actually a AO champion, and we can argue his peak is even higher than Murray's at majors.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Federer faced Agassi from 2003-2005, amassing an 8-0 record, including 3 slam wins. It doesn't make any sense at all to consider Murray an ATG while Agassi isn't.
Yeah, good point, why doesn't Agassi count as big 4? Anyone who puts Murray on ATG list and excludes Agassi has no credibility for me. And not to mention, Sampras saw Fed and ran away, protecting his h2h and also preventing Fed from getting the credit of beating him, so Pete should count too since Fed would destroy him.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Federer faced Agassi from 2003-2005, amassing an 8-0 record, including 3 slam wins. It doesn't make any sense at all to consider Murray an ATG while Agassi isn't.
Agassi didn't have ATG level results since Federer started winning Slams. He was no.7/8 in the world since the second half of 2003.

Murray was consistently top-4 in the Big3 era from 2008 to 2016.
 
Last edited:
Agassi didn't have ATG level results since Federer started winning Slams. He was no.7/8 in the world since the second half of 2003.

Murray was consistently top-4 in the Big3 era from 2008 to 2016.
Agassi was peak, he just had a difficult time because tennis evolved, and the young players at the time were capable of challenging old ATGs, unlike now.
 

wang07

Rookie
Agassi didn't have ATG level results since Federer started winning Slams. He was no.7/8 in the world since the second half of 2003.

Murray was consistently top-4 in the Big3 era from 2008 to 2016.
So apparently Agassi wasn't an ATG anymore when he faced Fed 2003-2005 and in 2005 USO final, but a 37 years old Federer, the only valuable opponent for Djokovic in the final makes it a tough Slam? Weird double standards there, also I didn't know players can suddenly lose ATG status. Or more like an ATG becomes a part of the weak era when he faces Federer, right? :unsure:
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Yeah, good point, why doesn't Agassi count as big 4? Anyone who puts Murray on ATG list and excludes Agassi has no credibility for me. And not to mention, Sampras saw Fed and ran away, protecting his h2h and also preventing Fed from getting the credit of beating him, so Pete should count too since Fed would destroy him.
Agassi's year end ranking since Federer reached no.1:

8, 7, 150, retired

Murray's year end ranking since Nadal / Djokovic reached no.1:

4, 4, 4 / 4, 3, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1, 16, 240
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Agassi's year end ranking since Federer reached no.1:

8, 7, 150, retired

Murray's year end ranking since Nadal / Djokovic reached no.1:

4, 4, 4 / 4, 3, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1, 16, 240
Ranking doesn't reflect current form. Wawrinka was never ranked nr.1 and he won 3 majors just like Murray.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Anyway we could add crippled Agassi in the OP and Federer would still be third in competition. He just played 1 final/semi against him.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
Agassi didn't have ATG level results since Federer started winning Slams. He was no.7/8 in the world since the second half of 2003.

Murray was consistently top-4 in the Big3 era from 2008 to 2016.
Another double standard just like I exposed you last time, but naturally you stayed silent. From 2011 to 2016, when Nole amassed moat of his slams, Roger didn't have ATG level results. In fact, he had Roddick level results, who you consistently dismiss as a nobody.

Now answer this: was RF an ATG opponent from 2011 to 2016 or not, and why.
 

EasyGoing

Professional
@Lew II this was the post I never got an answer

There was no Big 3 till 2011 - or is a 1 slam Nole considered Big? Because Hewitt was then double Big, if not more with his 2 year stretch at no. 1.

This means that until Roger was 30, there was no Big 3. And you'll have a very hard time proving 30 to 35 yo Rog was Big with his 1 slam and some 20 weeks at no. 1. That's Roddick's territory.

So, this means that all your ideas and theories are basically as dead as a dodo ;)
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Another double standard just like I exposed you last time, but naturally you stayed silent. From 2011 to 2016, when Nole amassed moat of his slams, Roger didn't have ATG level results. In fact, he had Roddick level results, who you consistently dismiss as a nobody.

Now answer this: was RF an ATG opponent from 2011 to 2016 or not, and why.
Show me these Roddick level stats.
 
Djokovic fans try to spin it that meeting a 8 time champ in the final is tough, because he hasn't faced any competition in this years Wimbledon at all.
It would be....it he wasn't as old as Father Time himself.
How many times have they not discredited "ancient 35 year old Agassi with his broken back" for being easy competition, but an almost 38 year-old Fed is tough. You cant have it both ways, Lew.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
:laughing:

How can these people be fans of Federer?

Comparing 2014-19 Fed to crippled Agassi is highly disrespectful. Federer would answer like this to these people:

I don't think Federer would disrespect Agassi like that. Even Federer and Nadal and Djokovic all said this era is weak, because young players aren't coming up. All experts say that.
 

JackGates

Hall of Fame
Please explain.
Tennis is a zero sum game. So, in order for someone to win, the other guy loses. This means, the winner is either better, or the loser was worse, there is no objective way to determine that.

So, yes, it can be a weak era, or Federer is really that good, both is possible, but we will never know, that's the problem due to tennis being a zero sum game. It could be that Fed and his era was so great that they prevented Roddick and Safin to win more majors.

Get it? Same with Djokovic today wining a lot. It could be that younger players are worse, or it could be that Murray generation was so great that they are preventing players like Dimitrov to win.
 

Born_to_slice

Hall of Fame
he got 2 easy slams in USO 18 and AO 19 just recently, you clueless muppet.
delpo didn't play tough (just about decent) in USO 18 final and nadal played terrible in the AO 19 final
Nadal got wiped off the court in AO final by Novak in God mode. Everyone thought his level was insane beforehand. Not Novak's fault that Federer was beaten by Millman and Zverev sliced to pieces by Kohli in USO '18. Millman and Delpo played good matches against Novak too, despite not winning a single set. Reminds of how Tommy Haas played a good match against Federer in W'09 but got nothing for his effort.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
So if Roddick had won a slam that Federer won in reality, the next time Federer beat Roddick in a GS final, his achievement would have been greater. Isn't that the crux of the fallacy here?
No because Roddick would be Wawrinka level at best without Federer.

Murray on the other hand is an ATG, with 11 slam finals, 21 semis, etc.
 

junior74

G.O.A.T.
No because Roddick would be Wawrinka level at best without Federer.

Murray on the other hand is an ATG, with 11 slam finals, 21 semis, etc.
Roddick was stopped 8/8 times by Federer in slams. 4F, 3SF, 1QF.

Roddick could have won Wimbledon 2019, if he was in his 2009 form, I think.

Unfortunately, I do not possess powers to see things that never happened, unlike you. So I can't be sure. Unlike you.
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Roddick was stopped 8/8 times by Federer in slams. 4F, 3SF, 1QF.

Roddick could have won Wimbledon 2019, if he was in his 2009 form, I think.

Unfortunately, I do not possess powers to see things that never happened, unlike you. So I can't be sure. Unlike you.
Roddick isn't an ATG in any universe, he was lucky his only ATG opponent was Federer. He beat only 1 top-8 ranked player in slams until 2008.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Roddick isn't an ATG in any universe, he was lucky his only ATG opponent was Federer. He beat only 1 top-8 ranked player in slams until 2008.
Heard it all now, Roddick lucky to have Federer as an opponent - arguably the best ever at his two best slams :-D

Your nonsense about ranking has been address many times...
 

Lew II

Hall of Fame
Heard it all now, Roddick lucky to have Federer as an opponent - arguably the best ever at his two best slams :-D

Your nonsense about ranking has been address many times...
Lucky to have only Federer, otherwise he wouldn't even have reached slam finals.

Ranking is used by ATP to compile draws.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Lucky to have only Federer, otherwise he wouldn't even have reached slam finals.

Ranking is used by ATP to compile draws.
lol sure thing :-D

If the higher ranked players didn't make it far enough in the draw it means someone else was playing better than them. It's not enough to just look at ranking to determine how well someone was playing - there's a myriad of stat that we could look at.
 
Top