MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Lol he had a bye till the final.
None of his slams in 2015-2016 were difficult at all. Same for 2018-2019 so far except 2018 Wimbledon SF.Djokovic waiting for easy Slams:
We are not in reality here, don't forget.Sorry for my poor math. But it seems everyone wins less than 50%in the semi against each other. Is that possible?
Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using Tapatalk
There were other ATGs.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?
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.
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.
Not if this champion is old and he won those 8 versus weak opponents.8 time champion in the final makes it tough.
There were other ATGs.
Since 2003 the only ATGs were the Big4
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.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.
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.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.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.
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.
That's because of weak era, not Fed being good.He is on a 11 win streak and has the highest winning percentage of all ATP this year, without skipping clay.
Old my ass.
How convenient.That's because of weak era, not Fed being good.
It is, isn't it?How convenient.
Agassi's year end ranking since Federer reached no.1: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.
Ranking doesn't reflect current form. Wawrinka was never ranked nr.1 and he won 3 majors just like Murray.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
14-19 was weaker competition, so we can't compare it.Try to compare results of 2014-19 Federer to 2004-09 Agassi.
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.
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
14-19 was weaker competition, so we can't compare it.
Show me these Roddick level stats.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.
Wins over top10s:Strange you don't know it, but you can assess his playing level... Anyway, 1 slam win, 4 finals and some 10+ weeks at no. 1.
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.
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 know if you just aren't smart enough to understand circular reasoning, or you are so biased to do this on purpose. You know that this logic is a fallacy, right?
Please explain.I don't know if you just aren't smart enough to understand circular reasoning, or you are so biased to do this on purpose. You know that this logic is a fallacy, right?
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.Please explain.
8 time champion in the final makes it tough.
Never wrote that.but aren't 8/8 titles are meaningless and won without any competition ??
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.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
No because Roddick would be Wawrinka level at best without Federer.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.
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.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.
In this thread I'm talking about the ATGs of the 2000s: the Big4.In what universe did I say he was an ATG?
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.
Lucky to have only Federer, otherwise he wouldn't even have reached slam finals.Heard it all now, Roddick lucky to have Federer as an opponent - arguably the best ever at his two best slams
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.