Biggest hole in a players resume?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Chadillac
  • Start date Start date
NatF said:
I guess that makes up for him being MIA in 93, 96, 97 and 98 e.g. most of Pete's prime :D

Interesting that Agassi was close to his peak in 2002, but as soon as Sampras retires he'd old and broken down...

Not that Agassi comes close to making up for the rest of the Big 4 anyway.
Click to expand...


Agassi didn't have back problems from the 99-02 time period. It wasn't until the 03-05 time period that his back started bothering him.

It shows in his results too. And Level of course.
 
I think changes in surface speed is blown way out of proportion. Ever since 2001 the courts used at Wimbledon are made with 100% rye grass. Before 2001 a combination of 70% rye grass and 30% Creeping Red Fescue was used. These change were made to improve the durability of the courts to better withstand the wear of today's game. You can't just point to the courts for the changes in the game. Everything from increased athleticism, racket and string technology. Also a big one that is over looked is the balls. I think the change in the balls at Wimbledon is more to blame.
 
90's Clay said:
Agassi didn't have back problems from the 99-02 time period. It wasn't until the 03-05 time period that his back started bothering him.

It shows in his results too. And Level of course.
Click to expand...
Agassi was a better ball striker and a bigger server than he was in the 90s. For sure he had more power when competing against Federer.
 
Tennis_Hands said:
I would challenge anyone, that is not enamoured with stats or tennis history to try to quote the 10 most important h2hs today (or even in the open era if he pleases) and he can correctly mention more than 2/3 (irrespective of who has the upper hand.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they'll always remember Federer as "that guy who always lost to Nadal," regardless of whether or not they know the exact record.

Lendl will be remembered as a guy who lost of a lot of important finals (probably Djokovic too unless he goes on a Slam finals rampage), even if people don't know the exact numbers. It is what it is.
 
90's Clay said:
Agassi didn't have back problems from the 99-02 time period. It wasn't until the 03-05 time period that his back started bothering him.

It shows in his results too. And Level of course.
Click to expand...

Agassi's results in 2003 were clearly about as good or better than any year from 2000-2002. He hardly balances out Djokovic let alone him and Nadal anyway...
 
TMF said:
No player has ever won the GS on THREE different surfaces!
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Again some post fantasy, when all are trained to excel on every surface available to them, so there is no surface disadvantage. If one cannot master the sport by winning the Grand Slam, it is due to not having the master's level of talent/court insight necessary to master it all with the four majors in the accepted framework of the calendar year. No excuses.
 
mike danny said:
Ok. Why doesn't Rafa have more slams with such a dominant H2H record? Why is he still way way way below Federer on HC and grass with such a dominant H2H record?
Click to expand...
Injuries is the main problem for Nadal. If Nadal has the luxury of never skipping slams like Federer, He'd be well past 17 by now.
 
TMF said:
Agassi was a better ball striker and a bigger server than he was in the 90s. For sure he had more power when competing against Federer.
Click to expand...

Bigger serve maybe (thought not by much), possibly mentally tougher as he finally seemed to have calmed his demons and became fully dedicated to the game and maybe fitter than he was in some of the 90s years but that's about it, he was worse in other facets of the game. He actually took some power off his shots and often prolonged points to tire the opponent out (he still was one of the best at running the opponent ragged), he overall played more conservative tennis when he was older though he still let it loose in some matches (his 2004 AO SF with Safin comes to mind, what a beautiful baseline bash-fest that was).

Fed never faced best versions of Agassi which were 1995 and 1999, his ballstriking and ROS were at their peak in those years and he used to take the ball ridiculously early. The version Fed went 8-0 was Agassi that could still play brilliant at times (which is to Dre's credit, he isn't the best ballstriker of all time for nothing) but on the whole was pretty far from his best.

I don't think Sampras is better on fast HC than Fed overall but IMO he was a tougher match-up for Agassi on that surface than Fed would potentially be (if they were all from the same generation). A hypothetical Fed-Agassi peak match-up on fast HC would have been played on terms that suited Agassi more (baseline battle, would have allowed him to get into the rhythm more) than it did against Sampras.
 
TMF said:
Agassi was a better ball striker and a bigger server than he was in the 90s. For sure he had more power when competing against Federer.
Click to expand...
Agassi that Fed played in 2004-2005 had no legs. Pitch prime Andre 1995 or 1999 against Fed and see how that goes.
 
tennisaddict said:
Rafa must be the GOAT. Wait ,didn't he lose 7 straight times to his rival within 6 months and most of them on his favorite slow surfaces ?
Click to expand...
Lew Hoad Beat Laver the first 7 times they played. I guess that disqualifies Laver as a GOAT candidate. Seriously it doesn't matter how many times in a row Djokovic or Nadal won. What matters is their overall H2H. And besides Nadal still leads Djokovic at the moment even if he's barely hanging on.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
Lew Hoad Beat Laver the first 7 times they played. I guess that disqualifies Laver as a GOAT candidate. Seriously it doesn't matter how many times in a row Djokovic or Nadal won. What matters is their overall H2H. And besides Nadal still leads Djokovic at the moment even if he's barely hanging on.
Click to expand...

H2h matters when accomplishments are similar. If Fed has twice the majors that Novak has and is ahead of Rafa in 3 of 4 majors by a huge margin, the h2h is irrelevant. Who holds the trophy on the final Sunday is all that matters
 
jm1980 said:
- Having an abysmal record against one of your main rivals, if not the main rival
Click to expand...
It's a lot less of a hole to have a losing record to one of the sport's greats than having an abysmal record against a nobody.
h3y58Sw.jpg
 
tennisaddict said:
H2h matters when accomplishments are similar. If Fed has twice the majors that Novak has and is ahead of Rafa in 3 of 4 majors by a huge margin, the h2h is irrelevant. Who holds the trophy on the final Sunday is all that matters
Click to expand...
We weren't talking about Fed and Rafa we were talking about Rafa and Novak. Right now Nadal has a 5 slam lead on Novak, and Novak is still missing the FO.
 
Bobby Jr said:
It's a lot less of a hole to have a losing record to one of the sport's greats than having an abysmal record against a nobody.
h3y58Sw.jpg
Click to expand...
Nadal is 5-6 against Davy. They basically split their H2H. If Fed was 5-6 against Nadal no one would bring up their H2H because that's not a huge difference.
 
90's Clay said:
Federer has 2 big holes. Nadal (Which is actually more like a grand canyon than a hole) and to a lesser extent Nole.
Click to expand...
How about the supermassive black hole of Pete's inability to beat a blind mug with two left feet on clay?
 
AngryBirds, why don't you answer the question about Laver and Rosewall?

That is your chance to defend your position and at the same time show that you really know your h2hs.

I don't know so I am curious to learn more about it as I have heard that Laver is the GOAT.

Surely, you as an avid fan of h2hs must know at least how that went for the player known as the GOAT, no?
 
Tennis_Hands said:
AngryBirds, why don't you answer the question about Laver and Rosewall?

That is your chance to defend your position and at the same time show that you really know your h2hs.

I don't know so I am curious to learn more about it as I have heard that Laver is the GOAT.

Surely, you as an avid fan of h2hs must know at least how that went for the player known as the GOAT, no?
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define where it matters pre-open era. If we count only the pro slams, their H2H is 6-4, hardly lopsided. And if we take into account that many of those meetings occurred before Laver's prime, the difference is even smaller. If we define important matches by H2H in finals, Laver led36-20, a pretty considerable lead for Laver.
 
AngryBirds said:
It depends on how you define where it matters pre-open era. If we count only the pro slams, their H2H is 6-4, hardly lopsided. And if we take into account that many of those meetings occurred before Laver's prime, the difference is even smaller. If we define important matches by H2H in finals, Laver led36-20, a pretty considerable lead for Laver.
Click to expand...

I don't know man.

Are you sure that your 6-4 estimate is accurate? Like I said, I don't know, I just heard rumours.

Besides that, what difference does it make whether it is more lopsided or less?

Shouldn't the GOAT have a positive h2h against his main rival(s) at the most important tennis arenas? Why would you need to make all those additional comments who was young and old and who had the overall lead? Isn't that a weak sauce reserved for the butthurt Fed fans?

:rolleyes:
 
Dedans Penthouse said:
How can you call people bitter when 90% of your posts are negative fanboy trolling in nature?

Click to expand...

True: from constant attacks on Nadal, the GOAT Laver, twisting their records (particualry that which is superior to his false god, such as the Grand Slam), it is constant trolling and worse.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
Nadal is 5-6 against Davy. They basically split their H2H. If Fed was 5-6 against Nadal no one would bring up their H2H because that's not a huge difference.
Click to expand...
Nadal hasn't even managed to split the H2H against a "nobody" like Davydenko. Federer, on the other hand, OWNS Davydenko 19-2. What does that tell us?
 
THUNDERVOLLEY said:
True: from constant attacks on Nadal, the GOAT Laver, twisting their records (particualry that which is superior to his false god, such as the Grand Slam), it is constant trolling and worse.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I must have missed the official coronation. Any links??
 
TommyA8X said:
Nadal hasn't even managed to split the H2H against a "nobody" like Davydenko. Federer, on the other hand, OWNS Davydenko 19-2. What does that tell us?
Click to expand...
...You can't split 11 matches down the middle it's an odd numbero_O. I also wouldn't call Davydenko a nobody he was ranked # 3 won a couple m1000 and the YEC. And like I said nobody would bring up the H2H if Rafa led Fed 6-5 or vice versa that's a rivalry. But the fact of the matter is Nadal does own Federer. 6-5 is a rivalry 23-10 is not.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
...You can't split 11 matches down the middle it's an odd numbero_O. I also wouldn't call Davydenko a nobody he was ranked # 3 won a couple m1000 and the YEC. And like I said nobody would bring up the H2H if Rafa led Fed 6-5 or vice versa that's a rivalry. But the fact of the matter is Nadal does own Federer. 6-5 is a rivalry 23-10 is not.
Click to expand...
Wow, you must have a phd in maths or something. :rolleyes:
The point was that Nadal has a much worse h2h against a "nobody" like Davydenko than he has against the open era GOAT. So please explain it to me. How come Nadal struggles so much against Davydenko (who is a worse player than Federer in practically every way), and yet beats Federer much more comfortably most of the times??
 
competition said:
Federer vs Nadal is a significant hole in Federer's resume. Federer vs Davydenko or Nadal vs Davydenko is nothing
Click to expand...
Struggling to defeat a "weak era mug" like Davydenko, when your main rival utterly dominates him is embarrassing and a gaping hole in Nadal's resume.
 
TommyA8X said:
Struggling to defeat a "weak era mug" like Davydenko, when your main rival utterly dominates him is embarrassing and a gaping hole in Nadal's resume.
Click to expand...
5-6 is an even H2H. 23-10 is an embarrassment to the sport. Besides, Davydenko is not even in the GOAT conversation, so you're hanging on to a completely false straw here.
 
TommyA8X said:
Wow, you must have a phd in maths or something. :rolleyes:
The point was that Nadal has a much worse h2h against a "nobody" like Davydenko than he has against the open era GOAT. So please explain it to me. How come Nadal struggles so much against Davydenko (who is a worse player than Federer in practically every way), and yet beats Federer much more comfortably most of the times??
Click to expand...
Davy matches up better against Nadal better than Federer, but Nadal managed to keep that H2H close ie a rivalry. The Fedal rivalry isn't a rivalry when one guy wins 70% of the time. Nadal picks on Fed's backhand, but Fed does the same thing to Nadal it's just that Nadal's backhand holds up where as Federer's doesn't.
 
AngryBirds said:
5-6 is an even H2H. 23-10 is an embarrassment to the sport. Besides, Davydenko is not even in the GOAT conversation, so you're hanging on to a completely false straw here.
Click to expand...
A losing H2H against some "weak era mug" is an embarrassment.
Nadal cannot even dominate a "nobody" like Davydenko, while Federer owns him.(19-2).

PS

Calling a 17 times GS champion an embarrassment to the sport is embarrassing in and of itself. It also says a lot about your brain cell.
 
Donnie Brasco said:
Davy matches up better against Nadal better than Federer, but Nadal managed to keep that H2H close ie a rivalry. The Fedal rivalry isn't a rivalry when one guy wins 70% of the time. Nadal picks on Fed's backhand, but Fed does the same thing to Nadal it's just that Nadal's backhand holds up where as Federer's doesn't.
Click to expand...
Nadal is 1-6 against Davydenko on hardcourt. That's not domination, that's pigeon teritory. Nadal is Davydenko's pigeon on HC, and Davydenko has won zero slams on hardcourts (or any courts).
Fed had to play a huge amount of his matches against Nadal on clay. In fact, nearly 50% of their matches were played on clay (and clay doesn't even comprise 1/3 of the tour). Had Fed and Nadal played more on other surfaces (like Nadal did against Davydenko), the H2H would have been much closer.
Also, lets keep in mind the fact that Nadal only shows up against Federer when he's playing great, and keeps avoiding him when he plays like crap.
Contrary to that, Federer played Nadal 4 times in 2013 (his worst year in ages).
Now tell me, how many times have Federer and Nadal played this year??
 
And Davydenko is 0-4 against Nadal on clay you can't just disregard clay it's a major surface. Nadal also leads Federer on hardcourts so you can't just assume that Federer would rack up wins left and right it would be closer than their clay court matches, but history has show us Nadal still gets the better of Fed on hardcourts. Fed also barely manged to beat Nadal on grass his best surface. Davydenko gave Nadal problems, but Nadal kept it respectable. Nadal is just Federer's kryptonite.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

TMF
  • Poll Poll
Biggest 'gaping' hole in their career
2
Replies
72
Views
7K
blarvitread
B
D
Biggest hole in All-time Great Resumes
2
Replies
74
Views
7K
Anti-Fedal
A
M
Nadal vs Federer - head to head at biggest tournaments and titles won
Replies
2
Views
769
Jackuar
Jackuar
T
Great Players - what are their biggest achievements and biggest gaps in their Resumes?
Replies
16
Views
2K
Smasher08
Smasher08
Djokovic2011
What's the one hole/stain in Djokovic's resume?
11 12 13
Replies
626
Views
37K
thrust
T
Back
Top