Arguing the lowest peak level

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
or why the whole business is futile because unfalsifiable.

Consider a following list for who had the highest AO peak in the Open era:

1. Federer (07)
2. Safin (05)
3. Edberg (90 pre-injury)
4. Agassi (95)
5. Sampras (94)
6. Djokovic (11)

Djokovic is placed as the 6th best - funny, isn't it? - and there's no way to prove this wrong or unreasonable since all of those guys played extremely well indeed. Does that mean this ranking has to be considered? No it doesn't, whether you think Djovak's peak is best or 6th best is of no import, the stat that matters is 6 titles for joint most with Federer (and good time to add some more); whatever his peak placement, he's had far greater consistency than anyone in the list except Federer, hence greater success too, all deserved.

Let's do this for Wimbledon too:

1. Krajicek (96)
2. Cash (87)
3. McEnroe (84)
4. Sampras (94)
5. Borg (76)
6. Federer (03, 06)

Can't prove this wrong either, lol. Remember, Krajicek straight-setted prime PETE, how do you know that wasn't the highest level ever, eh? Yet Fedr is the goat grasscourterer regardless because he maintained a great level for a crazy ton years leading to the best results, no matter if someone else may have had the hypothetical greatest peak.

The crazy case of Nadal means he can't possibly be moved below 2nd (behind Borg) for peak on clay with the most fanatical reasoning, but elsewhere his position could really suffer, e.g. Wimbledon - in chronological order:
Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic could be theorised to have displayed a higher peak, thus putting RAFA down as far as 15th in the OE, which doesn't matter as he's still the greatest of 1-2 titlists along with Edberg based on results and the fight displayed.

Summary: arguing peak leads nowhere, respect results and the scorelines attached, m'kay, no?
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
or why the whole business is futile because unfalsifiable.

Consider a following list for who had the highest AO peak in the Open era:

1. Federer (07)
2. Safin (05)
3. Edberg (90 pre-injury)
4. Agassi (95)
5. Sampras (94)
6. Djokovic (11)

Djokovic is placed as the 6th best - funny, isn't it? - and there's no way to prove this wrong or unreasonable since all of those guys played extremely well indeed. Does that mean this ranking has to be considered? No it doesn't, whether you think Djovak's peak is best or 6th best is of no import, the stat that matters is 6 titles for joint most with Federer (and good time to add some more); whatever his peak placement, he's had far greater consistency than anyone in the list except Federer, hence greater success too, all deserved.

Let's do this for Wimbledon too:

1. Krajicek (96)
2. Cash (87)
3. McEnroe (84)
4. Sampras (94)
5. Borg (76)
6. Federer (03, 06)

Can't prove this wrong either, lol. Remember, Krajicek straight-setted prime PETE, how do you know that wasn't the highest level ever, eh? Yet Fedr is the goat grasscourterer regardless because he maintained a great level for a crazy ton years leading to the best results, no matter if someone else may have had the hypothetical greatest peak.

The crazy case of Nadal means he can't possibly be moved below 2nd (behind Borg) for peak on clay with the most fanatical reasoning, but elsewhere his position could really suffer, e.g. Wimbledon - in chronological order:
Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic could be theorised to have displayed a higher peak, thus putting RAFA down as far as 15th in the OE, which doesn't matter as he's still the greatest of 1-2 titlists along with Edberg based on results and the fight displayed.

Summary: arguing peak leads nowhere, respect results and the scorelines attached, m'kay, no?
As you said, this theoretical debate relies on unfalsifiable assumptions, thus it is useless. By "unfalsifiable" I mean any assertion which can't be proved false (and it doesn't mean it is true). For instance, the assertion "unicorns exist in alternative universes" is unfalsifiable (but it doesn't mean it is true).

Anyhow, Borg a higher peak than Nadal on clay? No way. Anyhow, since we can't create a time machine to put Borg playing Nadal, your claim is unfalsifiable (and it doesn't mean it is true).

Murray higher peak on grass than Nadal? That claim has been refuted by experience. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals, Murray only 3. Crucially, Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon. Nadal defeated Murray at Wimbledon 2008, Wimbledon 2010 and Wimbledon 2011.

Murray was at his peak at Wimbledon 2010 (already multiple Grand Slam finalist, 23 years old and healthy). Murray was also at his peak at Wimbledon 2011 (multiple Grand Slam finalist, 24 years old and healthy). The fact that Murray hasn't won any Slam in 2010/2011 doesn't mean he wasn't at his peak (which sportsman is not at his peak at age 23/24?). It only means Federer is much greater than Murray. Federer defeated peak Murray at the AO 2010 final. Why? Because Federer is much better than Murray, not because Murray was not "at his peak".

In 2008 Murray was also at a great level since he reached the USO final. But Nadal just had a higher peak on grass. That's why 2008 Nadal destroyed Murray at Wimbledon.

Seriously, only the most unobjective forum member could argue that Murray had a higher peak than Nadal on grass. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and Murray only 3. In addition, Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon.
 
Last edited:

itrium84

Hall of Fame
or why the whole business is futile because unfalsifiable.

Consider a following list for who had the highest AO peak in the Open era:

1. Federer (07)
2. Safin (05)
3. Edberg (90 pre-injury)
4. Agassi (95)
5. Sampras (94)
6. Djokovic (11)

Djokovic is placed as the 6th best - funny, isn't it? - and there's no way to prove this wrong or unreasonable since all of those guys played extremely well indeed. Does that mean this ranking has to be considered? No it doesn't, whether you think Djovak's peak is best or 6th best is of no import, the stat that matters is 6 titles for joint most with Federer (and good time to add some more); whatever his peak placement, he's had far greater consistency than anyone in the list except Federer, hence greater success too, all deserved.

Let's do this for Wimbledon too:

1. Krajicek (96)
2. Cash (87)
3. McEnroe (84)
4. Sampras (94)
5. Borg (76)
6. Federer (03, 06)

Can't prove this wrong either, lol. Remember, Krajicek straight-setted prime PETE, how do you know that wasn't the highest level ever, eh? Yet Fedr is the goat grasscourterer regardless because he maintained a great level for a crazy ton years leading to the best results, no matter if someone else may have had the hypothetical greatest peak.

The crazy case of Nadal means he can't possibly be moved below 2nd (behind Borg) for peak on clay with the most fanatical reasoning, but elsewhere his position could really suffer, e.g. Wimbledon - in chronological order:
Laver, Newcombe, Ashe, Borg, McEnroe, Becker, Cash, Edberg, Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, Roddick, Murray, Djokovic could be theorised to have displayed a higher peak, thus putting RAFA down as far as 15th in the OE, which doesn't matter as he's still the greatest of 1-2 titlists along with Edberg based on results and the fight displayed.

Summary: arguing peak leads nowhere, respect results and the scorelines attached, m'kay, no?
Absolutely agreed.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
strictly evaluating results can lead to just as much bias as objective observations of peak especially in the recent era where the tour has been very shallow apart from a few players, hence why we end up with 2015 being the strongest year on record due to top 10 record or whatever.

Ultimately, if you are interested in ranking players on their level of play and not on bean counting, some accounting of the peak level must also take place. Roddick vs Murray at Wimbledon is a good example where you just can't stick to the title counts to evaluate. Same with say Borg vs some others at USO.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
strictly evaluating results can lead to just as much bias as objective observations of peak especially in the recent era where the tour has been very shallow apart from a few players, hence why we end up with 2015 being the strongest year on record due to top 10 record or whatever.

Ultimately, if you are interested in ranking players on their level of play and not on bean counting, some accounting of the peak level must also take place. Roddick vs Murray at Wimbledon is a good example where you just can't stick to the title counts to evaluate. Same with say Borg vs some others at USO.

When it comes down to one match (a difference of one title), that's easily defensible, like Murray > Johansson at AO for an obvious example. Murray > Roddick at Wimbledon isn't seriously disputable, even if their peak levels are in the same ballpark so their worth as SF/F opponents is similar, but Murray reached that stage more times. I suppose you could argue Ivanisevic ~ Murray at Wimbledon, with higher peak level and lesser consistency - not much of a difference, but the peak differential isn't that great either since Goran continuously underperformed in big matches (if he had the mental strength of an ATG, 3 Wimbledons wouldn't be out of the question, even one over Sampras).
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
As you said, this theoretical debate relies on unfalsifiable assumptions, thus it is useless. By "unfalsifiable" I mean any assertion which can't be proved false (and it doesn't mean it is true). For instance, the assertion "unicorns exist in alternative universes" is unfalsifiable (but it doesn't mean it is true).

Anyhow, Borg a higher peak than Nadal on clay? No way. Anyhow, since we can't create a time machine to put Borg playing Nadal, your claim is unfalsifiable (and it doesn't mean it is true).

Murray higher peak on grass than Nadal? That claim has been refuted by experience. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals, Murray only 3. Crucially, Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon. Nadal defeated Murray at Wimbledon 2008, Wimbledon 2010 and Wimbledon 2011.

Murray was at his peak at Wimbledon 2010 (already multiple Grand Slam finalist, 23 years old and healthy). Murray was also at his peak at Wimbledon 2011 (multiple Grand Slam finalist, 24 years old and healthy). The fact that Murray hasn't won any Slam in 2010/2011 doesn't mean he wasn't at his peak (which sportsman is not at his peak at age 23/24?). It only means Federer is much greater than Murray. Federer defeated peak Murray at the AO 2010 final. Why? Because Federer is much better than Murray, not because Murray was not "at his peak".

In 2008 Murray was also at a great level since he reached the USO final. But Nadal just had a higher peak on grass. That's why 2008 Nadal destroyed Murray at Wimbledon.

Seriously, only the most unobjective forum member could argue that Murray had a higher peak than Nadal on grass. Nadal made 5 Wimbledon finals and Murray only 3. In addition, Nadal dominates Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon.
Absolutely agreed.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
Absolutely agreed.

Sent from my Redmi Note 4 using Tapatalk
Yes, no doubt Borg had a higher clay peak than Nadal (despite the fact that only Nadal has 11 RG, 81 consecutive wins on clay and the record of consecutives sets won on clay).

And no doubt Murray has a higher peak on grass than Nadal (despite the fact that Nadal leads Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and reached 2 more Wimbledon finals).

Absolutely agreed.

Sent from my Unobjective IPhone 4 using Nadalhatertalk.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
When it comes down to one match (a difference of one title), that's easily defensible, like Murray > Johansson at AO for an obvious example. Murray > Roddick at Wimbledon isn't seriously disputable, even if their peak levels are in the same ballpark so their worth as SF/F opponents is similar, but Murray reached that stage more times. I suppose you could argue Ivanisevic ~ Murray at Wimbledon, with higher peak level and lesser consistency - not much of a difference, but the peak differential isn't that great either since Goran continuously underperformed in big matches (if he had the mental strength of an ATG, 3 Wimbledons wouldn't be out of the question, even one over Sampras).
Point taken on Murray having more good runs (this is where roddick mugging 07 comes back to bite him). Point is that the title count alone does not put him above Roddick.

Still, how do you rate Borg at USO vs Murray or Nadal? They have similar number of deep runs (Borg has more than Murray actually), but the titles the latter two piled up were simply not under the same circumstances to facing prime/peak Mac and Connors.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Yes, no doubt Borg had a higher clay peak than Nadal (despite the fact that only Nadal has 11 RG, 81 consecutive wins on clay and the record of consecutives sets won on clay).

And no doubt Murray has a higher peak on grass than Nadal (despite the fact that Nadal leads Murray 3-0 at Wimbledon and reached 2 more Wimbledon finals).

Absolutely agreed.

Sent from my Unobjective IPhone 4 using Nadalhatertalk.
dude chill out, pretty sure he only mentioned those as a hypothetical ranking, it's not the point of the thread.
 

Pheasant

Legend
We cannot prove peak, or which era was stronger. I have always said that. I cannot prove that my favorite player Federer is better than Michael Chang on grass. Those two met once on grass and Chang shredded Federer. And that was old man Chang that shredded Federer. A year later, 19 year old Fed ended Sampras’ run at Wimbledon.

I rate Federer higher than Chang on grass. But I cannot prove it.

I also cannot prove that Federer peaked higher than Hewitt or Nalbadian. Those two combined for 12-3 record against Fed through the 2003 season. Maybe that was Fed’s peak, but it gets masked by the fact that two players were better. We truly cannot prove any of this. And this is why the weak era mug talk always cracks me up. Discounting somebody’s accomplishments of being the best in the world seems bitter and immature.
 

Sport

G.O.A.T.
dude chill out, pretty sure he only mentioned those as a hypothetical ranking, it's not the point of the thread.
But that's the equivalent of saying that "hypothetically" Borg could have had a higher peak on grass than Federer and Agassi a higher peak on clay than Federer.

Those are impressive things to read.8-B
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Point taken on Murray having more good runs (this is where roddick mugging 07 comes back to bite him). Point is that the title count alone does not put him above Roddick.

Eh, with 2 titles to 0 it kind of does already, the only exception would be had Murray played really nothing special in his title runs a la Johansson the proverbial fluker, but he was great in 2013 (yeah, tough one vs Verdasco, so what, do we discount Guga's 2011 RG because he had to save MP against the great Michael Russell?) and good in 2016. Tbh the fact that the super duper Goatdick that played Fedr soooo close in 2009 actually met Mury and only put him away in tiebreaks (6-4 4-6 7-6 7-6 if you remember) - and that was not Peak Mury of 2012/13/(16?) - demonstrates that Roddick's peak wasn't really better. Same ballpark, as I said; with that, Murray's much better results (2 vs 0 is way bigger than 1 vs 0; can't fluke two titles) take precedence regardless of consistency.

Still, how do you rate Borg at USO vs Murray or Nadal? They have similar number of deep runs (Borg has more than Murray actually), but the titles the latter two piled up were simply not under the same circumstances to facing prime/peak Mac and Connors.

Murray has 1 title to Borg's 0 but Borg has 5 SF+ runs to Murray's 3 and two of Borg's losses were epic finals (1976 and 1980) while both of Murray's losses were easy, so this case is clear for Borg.
Nadal has 3 titles and 6 SF+ runs, played extremely well in 2010 and pretty good in 2011/13/17. All Borg has here is two super performances level-wise to Nadal's one, while Nadal has everything else (Borg 1981 ~ Nadal 2011). Nadal easily, come on.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
But that's the equivalent of saying that "hypothetically" Borg could have had a higher peak on grass than Federer and Agassi a higher peak on clay than Federer.

Those are impressive things to read.8-B

Borg won 1976 Wimbledon in straight sets (his first title there - the key fact is that the weather was unusually hot for the fortnight, affecting the grass so the ball bounced slower and higher than usual, much to Borg's delight). Must be in contention for highest peak - few have won the world's oldest tennis tournament without losing a set (since the challenge round system was abolished, obviously).
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
We cannot prove peak, or which era was stronger. I have always said that. I cannot prove that my favorite player Federer is better than Michael Chang on grass. Those two met once on grass and Chang shredded Federer. And that was old man Chang that shredded Federer. A year later, 19 year old Fed ended Sampras’ run at Wimbledon.

I rate Federer higher than Chang on grass. But I cannot prove it.

I also cannot prove that Federer peaked higher than Hewitt or Nalbadian. Those two combined for 12-3 record against Fed through the 2003 season. Maybe that was Fed’s peak, but it gets masked by the fact that two players were better. We truly cannot prove any of this. And this is why the weak era mug talk always cracks me up. Discounting somebody’s accomplishments of being the best in the world seems bitter and immature.

Well, we can't prove that sort of stuff in a scientific fashion, but saying e.g. Chang is better than Federer on grass would be obviously unreasonable, there's some common sense to it. But when it comes to actual great runs like the aforementioned Krajicek 96 & Cash 87, it's not so obvious that they can't have played some of the best tennis ever - the manner in which they dominated top opponents suggests they did.
 

Pheasant

Legend
Borg won 1976 Wimbledon in straight sets (his first title there - the key fact is that the weather was unusually hot for the fortnight, affecting the grass so the ball bounced slower and higher than usual, much to Borg's delight). Must be in contention for highest peak - few have won the world's oldest tennis tournament without losing a set (since the challenge round system was abolished, obviously).

Borg’s insane Wimbledon run of 5 straight titles rarely gets mentioned around here. He still holds the record by winning 41 straight matches at Wimbledon(Fed had 40 due to a buy). And yet, grass was likely Borg’s 2nd best surface. That is truly remarkable.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Eh, with 2 titles to 0 it kind of does already, the only exception would be had Murray played really nothing special in his title runs a la Johansson the proverbial fluker, but he was great in 2013 (yeah, tough one vs Verdasco, so what, do we discount Guga's 2011 RG because he had to save MP against the great Michael Russell?) and good in 2016. Tbh the fact that the super duper Goatdick that played Fedr soooo close in 2009 actually met Mury and only put him away in tiebreaks (6-4 4-6 7-6 7-6 if you remember) - and that was not Peak Mury of 2012/13/(16?) - demonstrates that Roddick's peak wasn't really better. Same ballpark, as I said; with that, Murray's much better results (2 vs 0 is way bigger than 1 vs 0; can't fluke two titles) take precedence regardless of consistency.



Murray has 1 title to Borg's 0 but Borg has 5 SF+ runs to Murray's 3 and two of Borg's losses were epic finals (1976 and 1980) while both of Murray's losses were easy, so this case is clear for Borg.
Nadal has 3 titles and 6 SF+ runs, played extremely well in 2010 and pretty good in 2011/13/17. All Borg has here is two super performances level-wise to Nadal's one, while Nadal has everything else (Borg 1981 ~ Nadal 2011). Nadal easily, come on.
09 Roddick wasn't peak Roddick either, taking all things into account, 03 and 04 were clearly superior overall, and 05 was probably about as good too. You expect serve reliant older Roddick to be beating guys with multiple breaks? There's really no good case for Murray's level being better. He doesn't have any particularly impressive wins (drunkovic, and Tsonga? Verdasco? Janowicz? Roddick's 04 win over Ancic and 09 win over Murray are better, in fact forget those, the two 05 wins back to back vs Grosjean and Johansson are as impressive as any win Murray has) and Roddick convincingly wins the Federer barometer. So two titles mean absolutely nothing, "fluke" or not (and while not fluked, Murray's two titles were pretty weak wins). Murray would have 0 in Roddick's position guaranteed because even he wouldn't last until 2013 to finally get his opening. As you said, what puts Murray ahead is the longevity, not the titles. In terms of peak level, Roddick is probably more dangerous because Murray has nothing to hurt an elite opponent. 09 sums it up nicely, Roddick really wasn't at a super peak level in terms of his full game, but managed to go so deep just by playing clean and serving the lights out. Murray could never pull something like that off. Since the longevity is significant (8 deep runs vs 4) it puts Murray ahead.

In terms of Borg vs Nadal, Nadal's 2010 is maybe more impressive than any of Borg's run, but it's hard to know for sure given the vast vast differences in circumstances. Besides that, he has two extra deep runs. When one of those runs is 2009...eh do you really want to hang your hat on that? So it's definitely not that clear cut, although I'd probably give the edge to Nadal due to the one extra quality run and being a wash for peak level, but it's worth noting that Borg was playing on much slicker conditions with wood and obviously faced much tougher competition so that leads one to naturally favor Nadal's level. Still, if we say 10>=80, 76=13, 11=81, 78>09, 08=79, so that leaves 17 so Nadal wins, basically by default since Borg stopped playing.
So certainly not as clear cut as 3 titles vs 0 would indicate.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, we can't prove that sort of stuff in a scientific fashion, but saying e.g. Chang is better than Federer on grass would be obviously unreasonable, there's some common sense to it. But when it comes to actual great runs like the aforementioned Krajicek 96 & Cash 87, it's not so obvious that they can't have played some of the best tennis ever - the manner in which they dominated top opponents suggests they did.
Cash dominated wilander and lendl and then grandpa connors, solid opponents but not top grass opponents given wilander and lendl's big lack of comfort on fast grass. So it's probably more like a top 10-15 grass peak. Krajicek dominated Pete yeah, but Sampras wasn't himself for most of 96 after his coach died and Agassi's form spiraled, he turned it on at USO similar to Fed 08. Still, along with schooling Stich, one of the most impressive wins we've seen. If someone wants to argue 96 Krajicek is close to a GOAT level grass peak I'd be skeptical (but still I'd probably put it in the top 5 and possibly not behind anyone but Fedpras, I think it was at least as good as the best of Becker) but I would entertain it, although it would almost certainly be limited to only fast grass (without poly). It's not an unreasonable assertion. When you're serving at a GOAT level, volleying, and squaring up that many returns/passes you're going to be extremely hard to beat no matter what. Of course the mental strength in critical junctures wasn't tested as much in that run and that's what I'd make the argument against him with (along with Fed's 1st serve return, lol).
 

Wurm

Professional
Murray was at his peak at Wimbledon 2010 (already multiple Grand Slam finalist, 23 years old and healthy). Murray was also at his peak at Wimbledon 2011 (multiple Grand Slam finalist, 24 years old and healthy). The fact that Murray hasn't won any Slam in 2010/2011 doesn't mean he wasn't at his peak (which sportsman is not at his peak at age 23/24?). It only means Federer is much greater than Murray. Federer defeated peak Murray at the AO 2010 final. Why? Because Federer is much better than Murray, not because Murray was not "at his peak".

TIL Wawrinka was at his peak around 2008/2009. Good to know.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
09 Roddick wasn't peak Roddick either, taking all things into account, 03 and 04 were clearly superior overall, and 05 was probably about as good too. You expect serve reliant older Roddick to be beating guys with multiple breaks? There's really no good case for Murray's level being better. He doesn't have any particularly impressive wins (drunkovic, and Tsonga? Verdasco? Janowicz? Roddick's 04 win over Ancic and 09 win over Murray are better, in fact forget those, the two 05 wins back to back vs Grosjean and Johansson are as impressive as any win Murray has) and Roddick convincingly wins the Federer barometer. So two titles mean absolutely nothing, "fluke" or not (and while not fluked, Murray's two titles were pretty weak wins). Murray would have 0 in Roddick's position guaranteed because even he wouldn't last until 2013 to finally get his opening. As you said, what puts Murray ahead is the longevity, not the titles. In terms of peak level, Roddick is probably more dangerous because Murray has nothing to hurt an elite opponent. 09 sums it up nicely, Roddick really wasn't at a super peak level in terms of his full game, but managed to go so deep just by playing clean and serving the lights out. Murray could never pull something like that off. Since the longevity is significant (8 deep runs vs 4) it puts Murray ahead.

Joe wasn't great in the '13 final, but Mury beat him in straight break sets, which is definitely better than beating Schalken/Ancic/Johansson with a tigher scoreline, or non-peak Mury himself in a tight match. For peak, Roddick has Wim '04 and that's it; silly to argue Wim 03 given the str8-set loss, Mandy would most likely do the same but I don't see why I should put it past him to win 12 games.


In terms of Borg vs Nadal, Nadal's 2010 is maybe more impressive than any of Borg's run, but it's hard to know for sure given the vast vast differences in circumstances. Besides that, he has two extra deep runs. When one of those runs is 2009...eh do you really want to hang your hat on that? So it's definitely not that clear cut, although I'd probably give the edge to Nadal due to the one extra quality run and being a wash for peak level, but it's worth noting that Borg was playing on much slicker conditions with wood and obviously faced much tougher competition so that leads one to naturally favor Nadal's level. Still, if we say 10>=80, 76=13, 11=81, 78>09, 08=79, so that leaves 17 so Nadal wins, basically by default since Borg stopped playing.
So certainly not as clear cut as 3 titles vs 0 would indicate.

Let's take a clear-cut example of Rafter, who's got two consecutive USO titles in '97-'98 and nothing else of note (one measly 4R losing to PETE in 2001, 3R, 2R and a bunch of 1R losses). You can easily argue Borg was the better USO player despite zero titles, given his four finals lost to ATGs, two of them in top matches. So what then, is Rafter oficially reduced to a weak era fluker, a glorified Johansson? Lovely, but you have to do that if you're gonna put him below a zero titlist even if it's Borg, no?
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Joe wasn't great in the '13 final, but Mury beat him in straight break sets, which is definitely better than beating Schalken/Ancic/Johansson with a tigher scoreline, or non-peak Mury himself in a tight match. For peak, Roddick has Wim '04 and that's it; silly to argue Wim 03 given the str8-set loss, Mandy would most likely do the same but I don't see why I should put it past him to win 12 games.




Let's take a clear-cut example of Rafter, who's got two consecutive USO titles in '97-'98 and nothing else of note (one measly 4R losing to PETE in 2001, 3R, 2R and a bunch of 1R losses). You can easily argue Borg was the better USO player despite zero titles, given his four finals lost to ATGs, two of them in top matches. So what then, is Rafter oficially reduced to a weak era fluker, a glorified Johansson? Lovely, but you have to do that if you're gonna put him below a zero titlist even if it's Borg, no?
Djokovic was atrocious in that match, Murray played well but if we're really going to put that as a reason why is level is better than Roddick, that's nonsense, sorry. Djokovic won 52% of serve points, -9 UFE to winners ratio by the official stats!! (that is almost totally unheard of at any round of Wimby much less a freakin final) even then Murray's performance was far from convincing wasn't he a break down in multiple sets and still posted mediocre serving numbers? In any case it is still straight sets, I don't wan't to overanalyze the solid win, but I'm definitely not going to be propping it up like that either. Same name over form stuff we should be trying to avoid. If his name wasn't Djokovic, no one would ever talk about that match. Case in point, Raonic played just as bad (actually he might have been better), why not bring up that match too, after all Raonic beat Wimby GOAT Federer in the previous round!!!!

Ancic and Murray were top 4 grasscourters at the time, both playing well, and Roddick beat them in 4. I don't get this fascination with this tight sets stuff. It's grass against top opponents, are you expecting 6-2 sets all over the place like it's peak Nadal at RG? It's very very rare for any well playing grass courter to go down that easy, it's simply not the nature of the surface. Only the absolute peak Wimby GOAT performance have managed to pull it off honestly (Sampras 93/94/99 Wimby, Federer 03/05/06, Krajicek 96, Stich 91, Mac 84, maybe some of Borg's best 76/78/79 performances) so essentially that's the standard you hold Roddick to when you ding those wins, while Murray beating drunkovic is some huge win when Murray has point blank never beaten someone as good as 04 Ancic or 09 Murray at Wimbledon. Murray can't say the same about any opponent he's beaten at Wimbledon (top grasscourter of the time playing well) besides maybe 10/12 Tsonga but Tsonga is Tsonga and was on holiday for half of those matches, Ancic and Murray had no such huge lapses in play and were probably better grass courters at the time anyways. As for Murray's needless 5 setters against Verdasco and Tsonga, they're definitely not any better than the Johansson and Grosjean matches.

Murray against 03 Fed probably loses at least 1 set by more than a break and doesn't push the first set to a tiebreak. Roddick played a very tight first set and was close to getting the break early in the 2nd but Federer GOATed out of it (drop volley and ace on break points or something and then he was untouchable). Murray's been uncompetitive against any well playing version of Federer at Wimbledon besides maybe the 2nd set of 2012 (Federer was terrible in the first set), and these are 30+ versions of Federer who relies on his serve to hang on, not the literally best Fed ever.

As for Rafter vs Borg, why do we have to ding Rafter to admit that Borg was in far tougher circumstances and thus the title counts don't reflect the whole story? 97 was a fairly weak win (still beat Agassi, Chang for the name over form crowd, but neither was quite on their game, Rusedski was playing well, but a pretty one dimensional opponent), but the 98 win was just as tough as Murray's 12 win (Pete similar to Djokovic, maybe better, Scud/Goran similar to berdych/cilic), I didn't see you reducing Murray to a weak era fluker to admit Borg was better. There's no need for qualifiers, you just evaluate what you observe and ignore the urge to make your conclusions line up with title counts. In fact, the worse the player gets, the less the title count matters in fact because there are more variables that could influence that players' outcomes. If peak Fed and Sampras play mugs at Wimbledon vs decent opponents, who cares they still win them all. For guys like Murray, Roddick, Rafter, it makes a big difference though, and thus it has to be taken into account with a lot of caution.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Djokovic was atrocious in that match, Murray played well but if we're really going to put that as a reason why is level is better than Roddick, that's nonsense, sorry. Djokovic won 52% of serve points, -9 UFE to winners ratio by the official stats!! (that is almost totally unheard of at any round of Wimby much less a freakin final) even then Murray's performance was far from convincing wasn't he a break down in multiple sets and still posted mediocre serving numbers? In any case it is still straight sets, I don't wan't to overanalyze the solid win, but I'm definitely not going to be propping it up like that either. Same name over form stuff we should be trying to avoid. If his name wasn't Djokovic, no one would ever talk about that match. Case in point, Raonic played just as bad (actually he might have been better), why not bring up that match too, after all Raonic beat Wimby GOAT Federer in the previous round!!!!

Botnic was backing up his serve well actually, it's the return game that was severely lacking (all three breaks he got against Kneederer were considerable mugfests) except when he faced Goffin the glorious server. I think it was actually a decent final for Andrew, Murray could've broken 2-3 times instead of one for better quality but he did his job on serve and set MILOS up for self-destructing in TBs.

Ancic and Murray were top 4 grasscourters at the time, both playing well, and Roddick beat them in 4. I don't get this fascination with this tight sets stuff. It's grass against top opponents, are you expecting 6-2 sets all over the place like it's peak Nadal at RG? It's very very rare for any well playing grass courter to go down that easy, it's simply not the nature of the surface. Only the absolute peak Wimby GOAT performance have managed to pull it off honestly (Sampras 93/94/99 Wimby, Federer 03/05/06, Krajicek 96, Stich 91, Mac 84, maybe some of Borg's best 76/78/79 performances) so essentially that's the standard you hold Roddick to when you ding those wins, while Murray beating drunkovic is some huge win when Murray has point blank never beaten someone as good as 04 Ancic or 09 Murray at Wimbledon. Murray can't say the same about any opponent he's beaten at Wimbledon (top grasscourter of the time playing well) besides maybe 10/12 Tsonga but Tsonga is Tsonga and was on holiday for half of those matches, Ancic and Murray had no such huge lapses in play and were probably better grass courters at the time anyways. As for Murray's needless 5 setters against Verdasco and Tsonga, they're definitely not any better than the Johansson and Grosjean matches.

Murray against 03 Fed probably loses at least 1 set by more than a break and doesn't push the first set to a tiebreak. Roddick played a very tight first set and was close to getting the break early in the 2nd but Federer GOATed out of it (drop volley and ace on break points or something and then he was untouchable). Murray's been uncompetitive against any well playing version of Federer at Wimbledon besides maybe the 2nd set of 2012 (Federer was terrible in the first set), and these are 30+ versions of Federer who relies on his serve to hang on, not the literally best Fed ever.

I give Roddick 2004 for peak over Murray and that's it. Not 2009 since he wasn't much better than 2009 Murray, so can't have been better than peak Murray (pls don't go '2009 mury is absolute peak mury at wimbelldun 'cause I said so', m'kay?). Not 2003, had a fairly soft draw to semis (no impressive wins as you say, oh wait Srichaphan and Bjorkman grass giants right?), and when all you have is taking peakish Fed to a single TB set as proof of epic level it's just silly. Not 2005 lol, that one is obvious.

As for Rafter vs Borg, why do we have to ding Rafter to admit that Borg was in far tougher circumstances and thus the title counts don't reflect the whole story? 97 was a fairly weak win (still beat Agassi, Chang for the name over form crowd, but neither was quite on their game, Rusedski was playing well, but a pretty one dimensional opponent), but the 98 win was just as tough as Murray's 12 win (Pete similar to Djokovic, maybe better, Scud/Goran similar to berdych/cilic), I didn't see you reducing Murray to a weak era fluker to admit Borg was better. There's no need for qualifiers, you just evaluate what you observe and ignore the urge to make your conclusions line up with title counts. In fact, the worse the player gets, the less the title count matters in fact because there are more variables that could influence that players' outcomes. If peak Fed and Sampras play mugs at Wimbledon vs decent opponents, who cares they still win them all. For guys like Murray, Roddick, Rafter, it makes a big difference though, and thus it has to be taken into account with a lot of caution.

Well, Murray's consistency prevents fluke arguments since he was there for many years so it was only fair he got to reap the weaker editions. Rafter did squat besides the two titles so this really throws the shade on his titles if we subject them to the weak era analysis - harsh to say he basically lucked out for two consecutive titles, isn't it? Obviously not the greatest comp, but he dealt with it well and lost few sets. Chang in the 1997 semi is underrated, played well enough to nick a set but Rafter peaked on BPs saving 8/8 making like 6/8 1st serves in, clutch job. The only top comp was Sampras '98 for three sets before he got hurt, and sure Rafter was two sets to one down, but the first set was extremely close and could have been anyone's, and it's impressive that a well-playing Sampras still couldn't break Rafter for two sets (both breaks occurred in the third for a 6-2 set).
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Botnic was backing up his serve well actually, it's the return game that was severely lacking (all three breaks he got against Kneederer were considerable mugfests) except when he faced Goffin the glorious server. I think it was actually a decent final for Andrew, Murray could've broken 2-3 times instead of one for better quality but he did his job on serve and set MILOS up for self-destructing in TBs.



I give Roddick 2004 for peak over Murray and that's it. Not 2009 since he wasn't much better than 2009 Murray, so can't have been better than peak Murray (pls don't go '2009 mury is absolute peak mury at wimbelldun 'cause I said so', m'kay?). Not 2003, had a fairly soft draw to semis (no impressive wins as you say, oh wait Srichaphan and Bjorkman grass giants right?), and when all you have is taking peakish Fed to a single TB set as proof of epic level it's just silly. Not 2005 lol, that one is obvious.



Well, Murray's consistency prevents fluke arguments since he was there for many years so it was only fair he got to reap the weaker editions. Rafter did squat besides the two titles so this really throws the shade on his titles if we subject them to the weak era analysis - harsh to say he basically lucked out for two consecutive titles, isn't it? Obviously not the greatest comp, but he dealt with it well and lost few sets. Chang in the 1997 semi is underrated, played well enough to nick a set but Rafter peaked on BPs saving 8/8 making like 6/8 1st serves in, clutch job. The only top comp was Sampras '98 for three sets before he got hurt, and sure Rafter was two sets to one down, but the first set was extremely close and could have been anyone's, and it's impressive that a well-playing Sampras still couldn't break Rafter for two sets (both breaks occurred in the third for a 6-2 set).
Ok so maybe 09 is as good as peak Murray, 04 is better, so that means Roddick wins peak level rather clearly? Also 03 Roddick is basically as good as 04 Roddick against the field, maybe even better, 04 played better against Federer. Still, what is the double standards for Roddick while Murray beats no top opponents in both his wins?

Also the 09 logic is rather convoluted. To reverse, Murray goes 5 against old Tsonga and Verdasco, on the brink of defeat against fiasco, and loses tons of sets to other people in his best runs(Ferrer, Karlovic, Janowicz, Baghdatis, Seppi, Roddick lost those sets too in 05 and 09, but not in 03 and 04, just 1 total those years), so how is he better than peak Roddick? 09 Murray is a better opponent than all of them and Roddick didn't need 5. Unless you're expecting serve bot Roddick to beat a very well playing Murray (yeah I get he wasn't at his peak, but he's not a baby or anything, the difference is not large) 4, 3, and 3 I don't get why you seem to be semi-dinging Roddick for that win when it's more impressive than any Murray has had. To go further, 05 Roddick had wins at the level Murray had in his Wimbledon runs (beating ok but not elite opponents in somewhat unnecessary 5 setters), lost to JesusFed about as easily as Murray did in 15 or the last 3 sets of 12, how are we sure that peak Murray is so much better than 05 Roddick, which is probably the 4th best Roddick at Wimbledon? No matter which way you slice it, it's hard not to give the overall edge in level to Roddick. As said, Murray wins due to superior longevity. If Roddick hadn't mugged 07 and given Federer a tussle (which I think he could have given the USO match), and had one more good run in 2010, Roddick starting to fade by that point but still there was a pretty nice path to the final, and then if he gives Nadal a tougher match than Murray, then the debate gets very interesting with Roddick having 6 good runs to 8 with better performances against both Nadal and Federer, probably edge Roddick. Obviously this is all big time pie in the sky, Roddick did himself no favors mugging up tiebreaks in 07 and 10.

As for Rafter, you do realize he has 3 good runs at the USO, not 2 right? 01 he played great at AO and Wimby, was in solid form at USO seeded 6th and lost to a really well playing Sampras, winning his prior 3 matches vs mugs convincingly. He could have played a bit better vs Pete but not an embarrassing performance by any stretch (better than the mental midgetry vs Nadal in 2011), was definitely playing at the level of the SFists Russians, just brutal luck with the draw. Murray also 3 good runs, 4 if you are extremely generous and give him 2014 (I wouldn't), so it's not like he's had quality run after quality run at the USO and finally deserved his stroke of luck, like he did at Wimby. There's a good case to be made they are about equal at USO at top level at USO, Murray winning the overall discussion because he doesn't have a bad loss like Rafter did in 2000, but unless you want to give a bunch of weight to R16/QF performances losing (fairly easily) to good, but far from elite opponents, it's really not a big difference. In any case, Borg is better than either, but no need to qualify them as flukes.
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
As for Murray's needless 5 setters against Verdasco and Tsonga, they're definitely not any better than the Johansson and Grosjean matches.

The Verdasco 5-setter was needless, but not the Tsonga one, IMO.

Tsonga played very well in sets 1, 3 and 4. Murray barely snuck out set 1 and Tsonga won sets 3 and 4.
Tsonga was cr*p in sets 2 and 5 and hence lost those easily.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
The Verdasco 5-setter was needless, but not the Tsonga one, IMO.

Tsonga played very well in sets 1, 3 and 4. Murray barely snuck out set 1 and Tsonga won sets 3 and 4.
Tsonga was cr*p in sets 2 and 5 and hence lost those easily.
Yeah I remember that match, not much different from Roddick going 5 against 09 Hewitt, or 05 Grosjean. Grosjean was on a similar level to Tsonga actually, hewitt a little better.

Anyways, the whole point is that here we are comparing quality of play in Murray's best Wimbledon runs to Roddick 05 and 09, not Roddick 03 and 04 (yes 03 Roddick was better, Federer's return and everything else besides serve being thoroughly declined totally changed the matchup and gave Roddick the margin he needed). Roddick 03 was comparable, maybe even a little better, to 04 Roddick outside the Fed matches. Wins the stats across the board, granted I don't put too much weight into small sample stats on grass when 04 faced a bit better competition, but it is worth noting that 03's serve stats were even better by a non-trivial margin (also played break points on return much better but I'll chalk that up to quality of opposition and noise). Obviously 04 being better vs Fed (albeit vs a worse version) gives it the edge, but 03 Roddick was really no joke and he'd be remembered better if Federer hadn't played maybe his best match ever.

I feel like Octorak and I agree in principle (peak Roddick better than Murray at Wimby but Murray has way more good runs) so I don't even know what we are arguing about lol
 
Last edited:

abmk

Bionic Poster
Yeah I remember that match, not much different from Roddick going 5 against 09 Hewitt, or 05 Grosjean. Grosjean was on a similar level to Tsonga actually, hewitt a little better.

Haven't watched the Grosjean match, looking the sets it does look somewhat similar.
But yeah, 09 Wim Hewitt was better.


YAnyways, the whole point is that here we are comparing quality of play in Murray's best Wimbledon runs to Roddick 05 and 09, not Roddick 03 and 04 (yes 03 Roddick was better, Federer's return and everything else besides serve being thoroughly declined totally changed the matchup and gave Roddick the margin he needed). Roddick 03 was comparable, maybe even a little better, to 04 Roddick outside the Fed matches. Wins the stats across the board, granted I don't put too much weight into small sample stats on grass when 04 faced a bit better competition, but it is worth noting that 03's serve stats were even better by a non-trivial margin (also played break points on return much better but I'll chalk that up to quality of opposition and noise). Obviously 04 being better vs Fed (albeit vs a worse version) gives it the edge, but 03 Roddick was really no joke and he'd be remembered better if Federer hadn't played maybe his best match ever.

I feel like Octorak and I agree in principle (peak Roddick better than Murray at Wimby but Murray has way more good runs) so I don't even know what we are arguing about lol

I do think 03 Roddick on grass tends to get under-rated due to the Wim semi where Federer played arguably his best GC match.
And Roddick was capable of better tennis on grass/Wimbledon in 03 than in 09 mainly due to clearly better return, but in terms of actual performance, I'll take the 09 one due to the final (in big part). The difference was that Roddick served phenomenal in the 09 final and his serving wasn't anywhere near that in the Wim 03 semi. Not that he served below par in the Wim 03 semi, it was more than decent, but could've been better. Of course Federer returning at his best didn't help.
 
Last edited:

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
Haven't watched the Grosjean match, looking the sets it does look somewhat similar.
But yeah, 09 Wim Hewitt was better.




I do think 03 Roddick on grass tends to get under-rated due to the Wim semi where Federer played arguably his best GC match.
And Roddick was capable of better tennis on grass/Wimbledon in 03 than in 09 mainly due to clearly better return, but in terms of actual performance, I'll take the 09 one due to the final (mainly). The difference was that Roddick served phenomenal in the 09 final and his serving wasn't anywhere near that in the Wim 03 semi. Not that he served below par in the Wim 03 semi, it was more than decent, but could've been better. Of course Federer returning at his best didn't help.
03's ground game (FH+movement, not BH) was also quite a bit better. I don't see much difference in score if 03 Federer played 09 Roddick, he'd still string together enough returns to win fairly easily in the end (maybe one more set going to 7-5 or tiebreak). Federe's decline in certain key areas gave Roddick the slight margin he needed to totally turn the matchup around and basically make it an even match because the margin with those two was small to begin with, just that Federer had it due to perfectly matching up with him. To Roddick's credit, he still had the game to take advantage of Federer's decline, which not many besides Nadal did, and I certainly don't see Murray doing very well vs the 08-09 Federer on grass, maybe not even Djokovic.

And in general 03 Roddick in general served like a monster on grass, even if he didn't vs Federer so overall his form was definitely better across the whole grass court season all things considered. Not fair to make 03 Roddick's judgement based on one match against what is potentially the best grass court level ever seen. In general, this is difficulty of evaluating level on grass, often it comes down to 1 match, although that is also what I like about grass. I'll be willing to give 04 Roddick the edge due to performance against Fed because overall and game-wise he was on the same level, not 09 Roddick though, it was a different kind of player.

Also for 09 Roddick, I feel like lost among the Hewitt, Murray, Federer matches is the Berdych match. That was a beastly performance, some of the best overall serving I've ever seen.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Ok so maybe 09 is as good as peak Murray, 04 is better, so that means Roddick wins peak level rather clearly? Also 03 Roddick is basically as good as 04 Roddick against the field, maybe even better, 04 played better against Federer. Still, what is the double standards for Roddick while Murray beats no top opponents in both his wins?

But that field he faced up to fedr wasn't strong, as you acknowledged, so how do we know then?
In general, I don't like this line of reasoning since it invites a slippery slope of the 'sure, [insert fave] won the match easily but did you see the level of play, ombeleevel tennis, yes?' sort to be applied to any match at will. Obviously, it does happen sometimes in actual fact and other times it's just underperformance, or an intricate mix of both - I'd rather not trust renowned TTW analysts to make sweeping judgments on the quality of play, though. It's all too easy to pay more attention to something that would favour your preferred narrative than not, isn't it?

As for Rafter, you do realize he has 3 good runs at the USO, not 2 right? 01 he played great at AO and Wimby, was in solid form at USO seeded 6th and lost to a really well playing Sampras, winning his prior 3 matches vs mugs convincingly. He could have played a bit better vs Pete but not an embarrassing performance by any stretch (better than the mental midgetry vs Nadal in 2011), was definitely playing at the level of the SFists Russians, just brutal luck with the draw. Murray also 3 good runs, 4 if you are extremely generous and give him 2014 (I wouldn't), so it's not like he's had quality run after quality run at the USO and finally deserved his stroke of luck, like he did at Wimby. There's a good case to be made they are about equal at USO at top level at USO, Murray winning the overall discussion because he doesn't have a bad loss like Rafter did in 2000, but unless you want to give a bunch of weight to R16/QF performances losing (fairly easily) to good, but far from elite opponents, it's really not a big difference. In any case, Borg is better than either, but no need to qualify them as flukes.

Puh-leese, swatting away mugs and journeymen to go down easily to PETE who didn't even win the event ain't all that to talk about. I mean, incredibull stuff from amazing Kiefer and Kohlschreiber to take a TB set off prime Wimbledonerer, really? Or maybe sneaking a single TB set in BO5 isn't actually significant, hm?

Mandy definitely sodded up at the USO though, nice runs in 08 and 11 cut short by sucking up to the better player, then a troll-in-the-wind type of win in 2012 and nothing since then, kinda symbolic to have his last prime match ruined by the Gong too, proves Gong > mury mind. Prolly the weakest overall winner of the last 40 years.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
03's ground game (FH+movement, not BH) was also quite a bit better. I don't see much difference in score if 03 Federer played 09 Roddick, he'd still string together enough returns to win fairly easily in the end (maybe one more set going to 7-5 or tiebreak). Federe's decline in certain key areas gave Roddick the slight margin he needed to totally turn the matchup around and basically make it an even match because the margin with those two was small to begin with, just that Federer had it due to perfectly matching up with him. To Roddick's credit, he still had the game to take advantage of Federer's decline, which not many besides Nadal did, and I certainly don't see Murray doing very well vs the 08-09 Federer on grass, maybe not even Djokovic.

And in general 03 Roddick in general served like a monster on grass, even if he didn't vs Federer so overall his form was definitely better across the whole grass court season all things considered. Not fair to make 03 Roddick's judgement based on one match against what is potentially the best grass court level ever seen. In general, this is difficulty of evaluating level on grass, often it comes down to 1 match, although that is also what I like about grass. I'll be willing to give 04 Roddick the edge due to performance against Fed because overall and game-wise he was on the same level, not 09 Roddick though, it was a different kind of player.

I think FH was clearly better in 03, movement a bit better, but BH was clearly better in 09 and so was transition game.
So overall ground game, I'll take 03, but not by that much.

the return is the more stark difference b/w 03 and 09. significant margin there.

Overall grass season, I'd take 03 > 09 for sure.
For Wim , I'd go 09 > 03 (2nd week of Wim)
Its not just 1 match each vs Federer (though that's the biggest factor). There's also the matter of Roddick proving himself vs Hewitt&Murray in Wim 09, clearly tougher opponents than anyone he beat in Wim 03.

Roddick beat Rusedski, Agassi Dent, Grosjean at Queens to win it in 03. Definitely much better than Queens 09 where he didn't break Hewitt/Karlovic. (not even 1 BP chance vs Hewitt). And of course he didn't get to top gear at Wim 09 until the 4th round vs Berdych.

As far as Wim 03 fed vs Wim 09 Roddick goes, don't see a double break set like the 3rd set in Wim 03. He'd have a shot at edging out a set like in 03. Whether he'd take it is a different issue.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
But that field he faced up to fedr wasn't strong, as you acknowledged, so how do we know then?
In general, I don't like this line of reasoning since it invites a slippery slope of the 'sure, [insert fave] won the match easily but did you see the level of play, ombeleevel tennis, yes?' sort to be applied to any match at will. Obviously, it does happen sometimes in actual fact and other times it's just underperformance, or an intricate mix of both - I'd rather not trust renowned TTW analysts to make sweeping judgments on the quality of play, though. It's all too easy to pay more attention to something that would favour your preferred narrative than not, isn't it?



Puh-leese, swatting away mugs and journeymen to go down easily to PETE who didn't even win the event ain't all that to talk about. I mean, incredibull stuff from amazing Kiefer and Kohlschreiber to take a TB set off prime Wimbledonerer, really? Or maybe sneaking a single TB set in BO5 isn't actually significant, hm?

Mandy definitely sodded up at the USO though, nice runs in 08 and 11 cut short by sucking up to the better player, then a troll-in-the-wind type of win in 2012 and nothing since then, kinda symbolic to have his last prime match ruined by the Gong too, proves Gong > mury mind. Prolly the weakest overall winner of the last 40 years.
Swatting away mugs to bend over for Nadal, oh wait he didn't even swat them away he was down two sets to Haase and lost one more to Isner lmao, is a nice run though huh? At least Sampras beat a top opponent in that tournament, Nadal got subsequently bent over when he faced one. The double standards with Murray never fail to amaze. Yeah we get that poor Andy Muwy was so unlucky to play with the big 3, we don't have to give him a pass and the benefit of the doubt for everything. Essentially what you just said is that "Andy Murray is Murray so therefore his 2011 run is good, Rafter is Rafter so his run wasn't good". You can apply that argument with Kiefer and Kohly because we know what class of player they are (and both went 5 sets prior to facing Fed) but there's nothing to suggest Murray should get that benefit of the doubt at USO over Rafter. Rafter was a legit top player that year at slams (more of a threat at the business end than Murray was in 2011 certainly), went through his first 3 rounds easily, and lost pretty easily to a very well playing sampras. Why does Murray struggling through 5 rounds and losing easily make him any better. Granted Rafter was at a totally different point in his career, but if Murray was hungrier it certainly didn't show in his play.

Murray's peak in on par with, and in many cases lower, than several 1-2 major winners, and his longevity is exceptional compared to those players, and allowed him to therefore win 3 slams. He does not deserve more, he never displayed the consistent top level. The sooner people realize this the better.
 
Last edited:

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
I think FH was clearly better in 03, movement a bit better, but BH was clearly better in 09 and so was transition game.
So overall ground game, I'll take 03, but not by that much.

the return is the more stark difference b/w 03 and 09. significant margin there.

Overall grass season, I'd take 03 > 09 for sure.
For Wim , I'd go 09 > 03 (2nd week of Wim)
Its not just 1 match each vs Federer (though that's the biggest factor). There's also the matter of Roddick proving himself vs Hewitt&Murray in Wim 09, clearly tougher opponents than anyone he beat in Wim 03.

Roddick beat Rusedski, Agassi Dent, Grosjean at Queens to win it in 03. Definitely much better than Queens 09 where he didn't break Hewitt/Karlovic. (not even 1 BP chance vs Hewitt). And of course he didn't get to top gear at Wim 09 until the 4th round vs Berdych.

As far as Wim 03 fed vs Wim 09 Roddick goes, don't see a double break set like the 3rd set in Wim 03. He'd have a shot at edging out a set like in 03. Whether he'd take it is a different issue.
I think it could go pretty similarly to 07 USO. Federer might manage to sneak out a break somewhere before because he was so good. I don't see 03 Fed letting Roddick slide in that 5-5 game in the first set of 09 for instance. That's why I think 07 is underrated, if Fed was any less than he was and Roddick had won one of the first 2 sets like in 09, it's a totally different story, and it's not Roddick's fault.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I think it could go pretty similarly to 07 USO. Federer might manage to sneak out a break somewhere before because he was so good. I don't see 03 Fed letting Roddick slide in that 5-5 game in the first set of 09 for instance. That's why I think 07 is underrated, if Fed was any less than he was and Roddick had won one of the first 2 sets like in 09, it's a totally different story, and it's not Roddick's fault.

Quite possible.
and agree with the rest of it.
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
I have it. Could upload.

That match not really on my 'to watch in the near future' list. (though a few other Roddick matches are)
But do upload it if you someone else is interested or you just want to.
 

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Swatting away mugs to bend over for Nadal, oh wait he didn't even swat them away he was down two sets to Haase and lost one more to Isner lmao, is a nice run though huh?
[/QUOTE]

The Hahahahaaase debacle was pathetic indeed, forgettable since it was an early round though. Don't see the problem with losing a set to Isner, yes he mugged a break - happens to literally anyone - and Isner botted to hold and take the set as he can.

At least Sampras beat a top opponent in that tournament, Nadal got subsequently bent over when he faced one.

Yeah, Pete beat a good opponent in straights - granted, it was really close, but still a straight-set win - and apparently got soooo tired from that one that he quit after going down a set in the final, why are we even considering him as a serious force in that tournament if he did worse than Federer at 2015 Wimbledon, who is regarded as the biggest indicator of the 2015 weak era? At least Oldr was there for two sets instead of one, unless of course you'd like to tell me how peak 2015 grassovic has nothing on Mythical Unbeatable 2001 USO Hewitt, amirite? Meanwhile, Nadal was getting crushed out there and actually willed himseld to play at 9000000% just to take that phucking set, he was shiet in the fourth afterwards but totally worth it. Some comparison with poor ol' Pete who got hungry and ate two delicious breadsticks. Whaddya wanna do with that fanboi talk, do a 90s clay impersonation?

The double standards with Murray never fail to amaze. Yeah we get that poor Andy Muwy was so unlucky to play with the big 3, we don't have to give him a pass and the benefit of the doubt for everything. Essentially what you just said is that "Andy Murray is Murray so therefore his 2011 run is good, Rafter is Rafter so his run wasn't good".

It shouldn't even occur to you to call mildly competitive 4R losses 'good runs' tbh, if taking a TB set off a strong opponent is enough to consider a run good then the standards have crashed.

Murray's peak in on par with, and in many cases lower, than several 1-2 major winners, and his longevity is exceptional compared to those players, and allowed him to therefore win 3 slams. He does not deserve more, he never displayed the consistent top level. The sooner people realize this the better.

Yeah, his peak isn't high enough for ATG status, never said it was.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru

The Hahahahaaase debacle was pathetic indeed, forgettable since it was an early round though. Don't see the problem with losing a set to Isner, yes he mugged a break - happens to literally anyone - and Isner botted to hold and take the set as he can.



Yeah, Pete beat a good opponent in straights - granted, it was really close, but still a straight-set win - and apparently got soooo tired from that one that he quit after going down a set in the final, why are we even considering him as a serious force in that tournament if he did worse than Federer at 2015 Wimbledon, who is regarded as the biggest indicator of the 2015 weak era? At least Oldr was there for two sets instead of one, unless of course you'd like to tell me how peak 2015 grassovic has nothing on Mythical Unbeatable 2001 USO Hewitt, amirite? Meanwhile, Nadal was getting crushed out there and actually willed himseld to play at 9000000% just to take that phucking set, he was shiet in the fourth afterwards but totally worth it. Some comparison with poor ol' Pete who got hungry and ate two delicious breadsticks. Whaddya wanna do with that fanboi talk, do a 90s clay impersonation?



It shouldn't even occur to you to call mildly competitive 4R losses 'good runs' tbh, if taking a TB set off a strong opponent is enough to consider a run good then the standards have crashed.



Yeah, his peak isn't high enough for ATG status, never said it was.[/QUOTE]

Are we talking about the same 2001 USO tournament? He beat Rafter, AGASSI (hello kind of a good match), and Safin in a row without getting broken I think. Quite a bit different from doing it against Simon, Agut, and Murray, no? Obviously 2015 Federer played better in the final, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, I don't get why you even brought him up. 2001 Sampras pre-final was as good, and probably better than 2011 Nadal. 2011 Nadal in his prime/peak after not having to face any hard opponents pre-final got bent over by a guy who was spinning in 90 mph first serves by the end of the match and had to tank the rest of the year. Way more embarrassing for the mental giant humble bull if you ask me. Also are we forgetting that Djokovic was up a break THREE times in that set and mugged up the consolidation with multiple bad UFE every time. THREE TIMES IN ONE SET. Like come on. Yeah he played some epic points, but Djokovic's serve was totally toast by then and he had to mug in quite unprecedented fashion. The fact that people even entertain the notion of 2011 F Djokovic being better than 2011 SF Djokovic sums up everything that's wrong with how tennis matches are evaluated, but anyways I'm veering way off topic here. A match that most people's opinions are based on entirely off the highlight reel (really like 4 points on the highlight reel), even then they somehow can't see a simple little thing called depth of shot in the highlight reel. That match was the closest thing to a WTA match we've seen for such high quality players on such a big stage with breaks flying like candy. Djokovic has an excuse due to his shoulder, but Nadal's garbage serving and hit everything inside the service box approach is a big reason for it.

I'm not calling it a "good" run, just that if we include 2011 for Murray we better include 01 for Rafter because there's no difference between the two besides Murray getting to face an extra 2 mugs and struggling with them majorly on top of that. So basically there's not much difference between the two in terms of high level runs, whatever you define that to be. Not sure there's much more to be gained from this particular debate anyways.
 
Last edited:

AnOctorokForDinner

Talk Tennis Guru
Are we talking about the same 2001 USO tournament? He beat Rafter, AGASSI (hello kind of a good match), and Safin in a row without getting broken I think.
Quite a bit different from doing it against Simon, Agut, and Murray, no? Obviously 2015 Federer played better in the final, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, I don't get why you even brought him up. 2001 Sampras pre-final was as good, and probably better than 2011 Nadal. 2011 Nadal in his prime/peak after not having to face any hard opponents pre-final got bent over by a guy who was spinning in 90 mph first serves by the end of the match and had to tank the rest of the year.

That's an interesting way to look at it, two opposite progressions in a way - Sampras playing well throughout but imploding in the final, Nadal being fairly unimpressive early on but decent in the second week, though he still came up way short.

Also are we forgetting that Djokovic was up a break THREE times in that set and mugged up the consolidation with multiple bad UFE every time. THREE TIMES IN ONE SET. Like come on. Yeah he played some epic points, but Djokovic's serve was totally toast by then and the fact that people even entertain the notion of 2011 F Djokovic being better than 2011 SF Djokovic sums up everything that's wrong with how tennis matches are evaluated, but anyways I'm veering way off topic here. Way more embarrassing for the mental giant humble bull i you ask me. That match was the closest thing to a WTA match we've seen for such high quality players on such a big stage with breaks flying like candy. Djokovic has an excuse due to his shoulder, but Nadal's garbage serving and hit everything inside the service box approach is a big reason for it.

The fact that both were physically toasted after three sets sums up what was wrong with that final. Not embarrassing for Nadal to force a set despite Djokovic being clearly in his head by then, though. Of course he gets tight just like everyone else whatever his devotees say, but keeps trying to fight himself on those occasions. Not that others don't, but he's a little better at maintaining focus, that's about it...
 

abmk

Bionic Poster
Are we talking about the same 2001 USO tournament? He beat Rafter, AGASSI (hello kind of a good match), and Safin in a row without getting broken I think. Quite a bit different from doing it against Simon, Agut, and Murray, no? Obviously 2015 Federer played better in the final, but that's irrelevant to this discussion, I don't get why you even brought him up. 2001 Sampras pre-final was as good, and probably better than 2011 Nadal. 2011 Nadal in his prime/peak after not having to face any hard opponents pre-final got bent over by a guy who was spinning in 90 mph first serves by the end of the match and had to tank the rest of the year. Way more embarrassing for the mental giant humble bull if you ask me. Also are we forgetting that Djokovic was up a break THREE times in that set and mugged up the consolidation with multiple bad UFE every time. THREE TIMES IN ONE SET. Like come on. Yeah he played some epic points, but Djokovic's serve was totally toast by then and he had to mug in quite unprecedented fashion. The fact that people even entertain the notion of 2011 F Djokovic being better than 2011 SF Djokovic sums up everything that's wrong with how tennis matches are evaluated, but anyways I'm veering way off topic here. A match that most people's opinions are based on entirely off the highlight reel (really like 4 points on the highlight reel), even then they somehow can't see a simple little thing called depth of shot in the highlight reel. That match was the closest thing to a WTA match we've seen for such high quality players on such a big stage with breaks flying like candy. Djokovic has an excuse due to his shoulder, but Nadal's garbage serving and hit everything inside the service box approach is a big reason for it.

I'm not calling it a "good" run, just that if we include 2011 for Murray we better include 01 for Rafter because there's no difference between the two besides Murray getting to face an extra 2 mugs and struggling with them majorly on top of that. So basically there's not much difference between the two in terms of high level runs, whatever you define that to be. Not sure there's much more to be gained from this particular debate anyways.

absolutely agree with the bold part. At times, I find it hilarious, at times annoying.

Sampras in USO 01 pre-final was definitely better than Nadal of USO 11 pre-final, IMO.
I think Agassi of USO 01 QF would've edged out Nadal of USO 11. Nadal would need to be in 2010 form to beat him. 2013 form would be a tossup I think.
 

metsman

Talk Tennis Guru
That's an interesting way to look at it, two opposite progressions in a way - Sampras playing well throughout but imploding in the final, Nadal being fairly unimpressive early on but decent in the second week, though he still came up way short.



The fact that both were physically toasted after three sets sums up what was wrong with that final. Not embarrassing for Nadal to force a set despite Djokovic being clearly in his head by then, though. Of course he gets tight just like everyone else whatever his devotees say, but keeps trying to fight himself on those occasions. Not that others don't, but he's a little better at maintaining focus, that's about it...
Why was Nadal physically toasted? He didn't have any strenuous matches before, nice day of rest before the final after a not that difficult match, no injuries that we know of, was able to play the rest of the year fairly normally (didn't play great, but no obvious signs of injury unlike Djokovic). I think it was a mental performance. Whatever happened in that 4th set was not the mark of someone who wanted to keep fighting. Djokovic was swinging from the hip because he had to, and he played like a total beast with his body in taters, but Nadal's total lack of anything on his ball and atrocious serving is what enabled that. Even Federer at 09 AO looked better than that in the 5th set and that's after fighting tooth and nail in the 4th set to extend the match, and 09 AO 5th set is the lowest of low bars to clear. Nadal totally gave up at the end of the 4th set in 2011. Add to that the first 2 sets performance, and Federer's mental midget 09 AO moment looks a hell of a lot better than 2011 USO, 11 breaks of serve and 26 break points in 18 service games for one guy in 4 sets, my god, I don't care who the guy across the net was. HE HELD SERVE SEVEN TIMES IN 4 SETS.

Sorry if I'm so excited here, this match is just one of my long standing pet peeves.
 

RS

Bionic Poster
09 Roddick wasn't peak Roddick either, taking all things into account, 03 and 04 were clearly superior overall, and 05 was probably about as good too. You expect serve reliant older Roddick to be beating guys with multiple breaks? There's really no good case for Murray's level being better. He doesn't have any particularly impressive wins (drunkovic, and Tsonga? Verdasco? Janowicz? Roddick's 04 win over Ancic and 09 win over Murray are better, in fact forget those, the two 05 wins back to back vs Grosjean and Johansson are as impressive as any win Murray has) and Roddick convincingly wins the Federer barometer. So two titles mean absolutely nothing, "fluke" or not (and while not fluked, Murray's two titles were pretty weak wins). Murray would have 0 in Roddick's position guaranteed because even he wouldn't last until 2013 to finally get his opening. As you said, what puts Murray ahead is the longevity, not the titles. In terms of peak level, Roddick is probably more dangerous because Murray has nothing to hurt an elite opponent. 09 sums it up nicely, Roddick really wasn't at a super peak level in terms of his full game, but managed to go so deep just by playing clean and serving the lights out. Murray could never pull something like that off. Since the longevity is significant (8 deep runs vs 4) it puts Murray ahead.

In terms of Borg vs Nadal, Nadal's 2010 is maybe more impressive than any of Borg's run, but it's hard to know for sure given the vast vast differences in circumstances. Besides that, he has two extra deep runs. When one of those runs is 2009...eh do you really want to hang your hat on that? So it's definitely not that clear cut, although I'd probably give the edge to Nadal due to the one extra quality run and being a wash for peak level, but it's worth noting that Borg was playing on much slicker conditions with wood and obviously faced much tougher competition so that leads one to naturally favor Nadal's level. Still, if we say 10>=80, 76=13, 11=81, 78>09, 08=79, so that leaves 17 so Nadal wins, basically by default since Borg stopped playing.
So certainly not as clear cut as 3 titles vs 0 would indicate.
:(
 
Top