Following 14th Grand Slam title, Is Federer the greatest or merely great?

[lessthanjake]

Federer is #1 right now. How can he be "well past his peak"? That's obviously an exaggeration.
Nadal beat Fed in the final of RG on clay, the final of W on grass and the final of AO on hard. He has also beaten Fed twice as often as Fed has beaten him. That's a little bit better than just "doing well" against a player.
Getting beaten by a player 80% of the time is not meaningless either, no matter how you look at it, especially when we're talking about a top player. It does not cancel all the other achievements but it does mean something. It means Federer is struggling against his rivals. And Murray started beating Federer DURING Fed's peak (2006) - same as Nadal.

He IS well past his peak despite being #1. Just because he is #1 does not mean he is at his very best. He just is good enough that he can be past his peak and still be #1.

And 13-7 is not 80% of the time. It is 65%. Secondly, Federer has won 55% of their meetings off of clay. Nadal IS a better clay court player; we know that. Federer is good enough to occasionally beat him on clay, but Nadal is better on that surface, so the head to head there doesn't really tell us much we don't already know. Anyways, go back a few pages to see my long explanation of why Nadal is SUCH a terrible individual matchup against Federer. He IS a bad matchup, and the fact that he STILL has a positive head to head against Nadal off of clay is a testament to the fact that he is a considerably better player off of clay than Nadal.

And Murray beat Federer once in 2006. Don't get all caught up with that. He won in Cincinnati. It is not like he beat Federer at a slam in 2006. Let's be honest; that would never have happened. One random early round Masters Series match does not tell us much about the actual quality and matchup of the players. Other than that, all of Murray's wins have come since 2008, when Federer took a distinct downturn. Still, though, the biggest point to be made is that both Federer and Murray certainly value Federer's wins over Murray's wins in their head to head. That US Open final victory is not something Federer would give up for a few Masters Series wins; trust me.

 

[NonP]

Sorry but this is simply not true.

See below.

I didnt say it was, but do you see Nadal becoming as dominant as Federer once was? I certainly dont.

I do expect Nadal to add to his resume, but I don't know how much. I put little stock in long-term predictions.

I dont agree that its tougher now, but I dont want to argue that. And they have been playing against the same pool of players for the last 4 years, buddy. Federer hasn't lost to nobodies in slams. Nadal has.

Fallacious. Nadal's prime on all surfaces didn't start until '08, Djokovic's breakthrough came in the late summer of '07, Murray's came in '08, and del Potro didn't become a contender until this year. And we still have many of the same top guns from '04-'07, particularly Roddick who many assert is playing better than ever.

I wouldnt necessarily want to play Tsonga instead of those guys (I dont know why you put Baghdatis in there though...). That wasn't my point though. My point was that no matter how well Tsonga was playing, he IS a 2nd tier player and Nadal DID lose to him. Federer doesn't lose to 2nd tier players no matter how well they are playing. Notice how he has beaten Soderling, Gonzalez, and Baghdatis in slam finals. All of them are 2nd tier players who were playing extraordinarily well during the particular tournament they made the finals in. The fact is, Federer doesn't lose to lesser players who are playing extraordinarily well. Nadal does. That's why Federer rarely misses a slam final and Nadal frequently does.

It matters little whether they're 2nd-tier players or not, especially when they happen to be streaky like Soderling, Gonzalez and Baghdatis (who, BTW, was the '06 AO finalist). Why do you think you brought up the playing level of Fed's opponents on the given day? Tsonga simply played the best tennis of his career in the '08 AO SF, and if you can't see that we'd better end this discussion now. Gonzalez is the only one of the three players you mentioned who I admit didn't suffer the 1st-time Slam blues in the '07 AO final, but even here I'd say he played noticeably better against Rafa.

It's not a straw man. It is exactly why Federer is a better player than Nadal. Federer does not lose in slams to anyone but highly ranked players playing some of their best tennis. Nadal may still show that he can do that too, but so far he has simply not been as consistently dominant over the lesser players on tour. In the last two years, he has lost to Soderling, Tsonga, and Ferrer in slams. The last time Federer lost to players of that nature in a slam was 6 years ago.

This is what has allowed Federer to dominate the slams so much. You can basically write him straight into the semifinals. No other player in the history of tennis has been that way. And that is a big reason why Federer is the greatest of all time. Don't try to dismiss it. It is a big deal.

I said "straw man" because I never said "NONE of Federer's 2nd tier opponents have played great matches against him." And like I said, Nadal's career isn't over yet, and he lost to Ferrer at the '07 USO when he had yet to enter his prime on HCs. You're being highly selective in your comparison.

 

[NonP]

I pointed out that your arguments were inconsistent. Instead of attempting to resolve the inconsistency you responded with insults.

I said what I said because there was no inconsistency. My claim that "the competition is now tougher" is simply that--a claim, or an opinion, or an assertion, or whatever you wanna call it. I don't expect to be able to "prove" this by culling selective stats from the overall pool and spinning them my way, as you and many other posters do so often.

This appears to be your standard method of operation, if one is to judge from your other posts in the brief period that you have been a member of this forum.

Here's a tip. If you want to be taken seriously don't operate on the assumption that you know everything while anyone who disagrees with you is a complete idiot. Lighten up on the insults and focus more on reasoned argument.

And you might not wanna operate on the same assumption yourself. That's an interest-free tip.

 

[mandy01]

^^ I dont buy that crap.The competition today is no better than what it used to be.I said before I'll say it again-It is not true.Period.

 

[veroniquem]

To know how Fed is past his peak,you need to know the technical aspects of the game slightly which you obviously dont.

Technique or not, how bad can you be if you're #1? And win slams? (Granted he only won them because the real #1 bailed out but that's another story...)

 

[NonP]

^^ I dont buy that crap.The competition today is no better than what it used to be.I said before I'll say it again-It is not true.Period.

Thanks for such a persuasive counterargument.

 

[mandy01]

Technique or not, how bad can you be if you're #1? And win slams? (Granted he only won them because the real #1 bailed out but that's another story...)

Did I call him bad? Are you so keen on exposing your ignorance?I can give you a lecture on how his game is on decline if you so wish(since I have done so when you were too busy nursing your bitterness).Only you'll still come up with the same stuff you say like a broken record. Your bracketed part shows just how much of a fangirl you are-too blind to notice how tennis or sports in general work.

 

[veroniquem]

He IS well past his peak despite being #1. Just because he is #1 does not mean he is at his very best. He just is good enough that he can be past his peak and still be #1.

And 13-7 is not 80% of the time. It is 65%. Secondly, Federer has won 55% of their meetings off of clay. Nadal IS a better clay court player; we know that. Federer is good enough to occasionally beat him on clay, but Nadal is better on that surface, so the head to head there doesn't really tell us much we don't already know. Anyways, go back a few pages to see my long explanation of why Nadal is SUCH a terrible individual matchup against Federer. He IS a bad matchup, and the fact that he STILL has a positive head to head against Nadal off of clay is a testament to the fact that he is a considerably better player off of clay than Nadal.

And Murray beat Federer once in 2006. Don't get all caught up with that. He won in Cincinnati. It is not like he beat Federer at a slam in 2006. Let's be honest; that would never have happened. One random early round Masters Series match does not tell us much about the actual quality and matchup of the players. Other than that, all of Murray's wins have come since 2008, when Federer took a distinct downturn. Still, though, the biggest point to be made is that both Federer and Murray certainly value Federer's wins over Murray's wins in their head to head. That US Open final victory is not something Federer would give up for a few Masters Series wins; trust me.

The 80% actually referred to Murray, not Nadal... (although it's probably not exact either!)
Yes, Fed is great at winning slams but he's not particularly great at dominating rivals. Both can be true and in this instance both are.

 

[mandy01]

Thanks for such a persuasive counterargument.

I could say more but I figure I'll only be wasting my time with you :wink:
Your logic has no substance whasoever and other than telling who came into their prime when and making a random claim of how Roddick is playing better you dont really point towards how exactly they have strengthened the competition as compared to what the competition was previously.
But you're welcome.:wink:

 

[NonP]

Technique or not, how bad can you be if you're #1? And win slams? (Granted he only won them because the real #1 bailed out but that's another story...)

veroniquem, I think most observers would agree that the dip in Fed's form has indeed occurred, though the hero-worshipers make it out to be much bigger than it is. Anyway this is largely irrelevant with regard to today's competition. Fed is just one player among the many.

 

[veroniquem]

veroniquem, I think most observers would agree that the dip in Fed's form has indeed occurred, though the hero-worshipers make it out to be much bigger than it is. Anyway this is largely irrelevant with regard to today's competition. Fed is just one player among the many.

Of course he dipped (IMO he started dipping as early as 2007) but you can't say either that he's "very far from his peak", he's not "that far" to be honest (he'll probably be soon but not yet).

 

[NonP]

I'm glad you did :wink: I enjoyed your lack of substance in practically all your oh-so-long posts as well :lol:
That said if you're done ridiculing me I would appreciate an explanation to back up the random claims you just made.

When I am done ridiculing you? Maybe I need to check my pot and kettle.

I dunno which claims of mine you consider random. Rafa's prime on grass and hard courts did begin just last year, Djokovic and Murray didn't start winning big events until '07 and '08 respectively, and I'd say del Potro made himself a Slam contender at this year's FO. In fact the Argie's improvement so far this year, especially in his serve, has been startling. And don't just listen to me about Roddick playing better than ever. That's what the talking heads and many fans on this and other tennis boards are saying.

 

[zagor]

Just a few points without engaging fully in the neverending discussion between Fed and Sampras fans here.

Djokovic's breakthrough came in the late summer of '07.

I'd say Novak's breakthrough actually came in Miami in 2007 when he beat Nadal on the way to the title(in quarters if I remember well),won his first mastes title and If I'm not wrong became the youngest Miami winner ever.Before Miami,he reached IW final(lost to Nadal)and after IW+Miami even though he had a mediocre start of the clay season reached FO SF for the first time and also had his best Wimbledon result to date(SF loss to Nadal).He then continued to play some excellent tennis in Montreal(beat Roddick,Nadal and Fed in a row)and USO(reached the final,losing to Fed)although had an early loss to Moya in Cincy in between.So I'd say Novak was already playing some great tennis and establishing himself as an elite player already going into late summer of 2007.

In many ways I wish he played with same confidence and enthusiasm this year in which he just doesn't seem as happy and carefree oncourt anymore.Hope he starts enjoying tennis and playing more agressive tennis again instead of relying too much on defense and grinding opponets down.

Tsonga simply played the best tennis of his career in the '08 AO SF, and if you can't see that we'd better end this discussion now. to enter his prime on HCs.

I agree that Tsonga played his best tennis of his career against Nadal in 2008 SF and as his fan I hope he repeats that kind of performance again.However I would give Fed on a good day clearly a better chance to beat Tsonga that day than Nadal because of the match-up.Mainly because Fed has a much better serve than Nadal,is generally better at handling big serves and more adept at taking the ball earlier so big hitting guys like Tsonga don't have as much time to setup their shots.

 

[mandy01]

When I am done ridiculing you? Maybe I need to check my pot and kettle.

I dunno which claims of mine you consider random. Rafa's prime on grass and hard courts did begin just last year, Djokovic and Murray didn't start winning big events until '07 and '08 respectively, and I'd say del Potro made himself a Slam contender at this year's FO. In fact the Argie's improvement so far this year, especially in his serve, has been startling. And don't just listen to me about Roddick playing better than ever. That's what the talking heads and many fans on this and other tennis boards are saying.

Wait...so Rafa wasnt in his prime on grass just because he lost to Fed in the finals? How fair is that? And you guys complain when someone discounts the H2H....As for HC-Its not about his prime-Its about the fact that he was either exhausted due playing an unwise schedule,his game isnt naturally tailored for HC hence the struggles and the fact that the players who beat him simply played out of their minds on the given day and he couldn't weather the storm.
Besides,if you're going to start picking out a player's prime on individual surfaces then we're never going to get into a decent discussion.

Djokovic and Murray are the current top players.When Fed played there were other slam winners you conveniently left out.And please explain how Djokovic and Murray are any better than the players of the past-Just because they beat Fed dosent mean they are better.
As for Roddick-I agree to that but the change is not seismic for you claim the competition is stronger.

Lastly,instead of chuckling away you might want to consider the fact that the competition today is simply 'different' so to put.Not better,not worse just different with different types of players who bring different characteristics and their unique styles on a tennis court.

 

[NonP]

I'd say Novak's breakthrough actually came in Miami in 2007 when he beat Nadal on the way to the title(in quarters if I remember well),won his first mastes title and If I'm not wrong became the youngest Miami winner ever.Before Miami,he reached IW final(lost to Nadal)and after IW+Miami even though he had a mediocre start of the clay season reached FO SF for the first time and also had his best Wimbledon result to date(SF loss to Nadal).He then continued to play some excellent tennis in Montreal(beat Roddick,Nadal and Fed in a row)and USO(reached the final,losing to Fed)although had an early loss to Moya in Cincy in between.So I'd say Novak was already playing some great tennis and establishing himself as an elite player already going into late summer of 2007.

In many ways I wish he played with same confidence and enthusiasm this year in which he just doesn't seem as happy and carefree oncourt anymore.Hope he starts enjoying tennis and playing more agressive tennis again instead of relying too much on defense and grinding opponets down.

You do have a point there. I say his breakthrough came in the summer because in Miami he faced only one tough opponent in Nadal, and back then Rafa wasn't quite the force on HCs that he is now. And like you said his clay season in '07, apart from the FO, wasn't as spectacular as his last two.

As for his future prospects, I think they're still pretty good. Let's wait a little more before we start branding him as a washed-up Kafelnikov.

I agree that Tsonga played his best tennis of his career against Nadal in 2008 SF and as his fan I hope he repeats that kind of performance again.However I would give Fed on a good day clearly a better chance to beat Tsonga that day than Nadal because of the match-up.Mainly because Fed has a much better serve than Nadal,is generally better at handling big serves and more adept at taking the ball earlier so big hitting guys like Tsonga don't have as much time to setup their shots.

Agreed. My point wasn't that Tsonga at his peak beats Fed at his peak (which is a dubious claim to begin with, because of the matchup issues you just mentioned), but that Nadal lost to a very talented player playing the match of his life. I certainly like that particular Tsonga's chances against, say, Fed in his '06 AO form.

 

[zagor]

You do have a point there. I say his breakthrough came in the summer because in Miami he faced only one tough opponent in Nadal, and back then Rafa wasn't quite the force on HCs that he is now. And like you said his clay season in '07, apart from the FO, wasn't as spectacular as his last two.

As for his future prospects, I think they're still pretty good. Let's wait a little more before we start branding him as a washed-up Kafelnikov.

Sure,I'm not writing him off,he's still relatively young.I don't think he played the tennis he's capable of this year aside from clay masters but on the top level sometimes all it takes is one big win for a player to get on a roll.He also's rumored to be changing coaches(he's going to start work with Todd Martin)which might turn out for the better in the long run,maybe he got all he can from Vajda and it's time to move on.

Agreed. My point wasn't that Tsonga at his peak beats Fed at his peak (which is a dubious claim to begin with, because of the matchup issues you just mentioned), but that Nadal lost to a very talented player playing the match of his life. I certainly like that particular Tsonga's chances against, say, Fed in his '06 AO form.

I can agree with that,Tsonga playing like he did in 2008 AO SF would have a good shot against 2006 AO Fed.While having probably his best year ever in 2006 overall,Fed didn't play at that high of a level in AO that year as his matches with Kolja(in which Kolja had chances to go 2-1 up)Bagdathis(was up a set and a break),Haas(got pushed to five)and even Kiefer showed.He won AO that year without playing his best tennis,his level at 3 other slams was much higher IMO.

 

[mandy01]

I can agree with that,Tsonga playing like he did in 2008 AO SF would have a good shot against 2006 AO Fed.While having probably his best year ever in 2006 overall,Fed didn't play at that high of a level in AO that year as his matches with Kolja(in which Kolja had chances to go 2-1 up)Bagdathis(was up a set and a break),Haas(got pushed to five)and even Kiefer showed.He won AO that year without playing his best tennis,his level at 3 other slams was much higher IMO.

This whole thing would seem quite funny because there are good chances Tsonga wouldn't have succeeded.I dont get the point of these hypothetical situations-Nadal and Federer are players with two different styles and different mindsets.I dont think Tsonga's game particularly worries Fed.

 

[NonP]

Wait...so Rafa wasnt in his prime on grass just because he lost to Fed in the finals? How fair is that? And you guys complain when someone discounts the H2H....As for HC-Its not about his prime-Its about the fact that he was either exhausted due playing an unwise schedule,his game isnt naturally tailored for HC hence the struggles and the fact that the players who beat him simply played out of their minds on the given day and he couldn't weather the storm.
Besides,if you're going to start picking out a player's prime on individual surfaces then we're never going to get into a decent discussion.

No, I say Rafa wasn't in his prime on grass in '07 because he lost two sets to both Soderling and Youzhny on his way to the final. But let's ignore the stats for the time being. Is there anyone here who would deny that Rafa in '08 was at least a notch or two above himself in '07? It's really no contest. Ditto with his prime on hard courts.

And we should indeed consider the individual surfaces when evaluating a player's prime. Every player develops differently with regard to the surface, and that's certainly the case with Rafa, just as with Borg and Sampras who didn't gain a solid footing on grass until '76 and '93, respectively.

Djokovic and Murray are the current top players.When Fed played there were other slam winners you conveniently left out.And please explain how Djokovic and Murray are any better than the players of the past-Just because they beat Fed dosent mean they are better.
As for Roddick-I agree to that but the change is not seismic for you claim the competition is stronger.

Not sure which players I left out. I did fail to mention Safin and Nalbandian, and in fact those are the only two players from Fed's dominant years who I think merit comparison to Djokovic, Murray and now del Potro. First of all, Nalby was still a factor until earlier this year, and I don't think I need to explain Safin's legendary inconsistency, though part of it was due to injuries. His prime coincided with Fed's for one year at most, between the Australian Opens in '04 and '05, and even this is stretching the definition of "prime," as his results in between were mediocre except in the '04 indoor season.

Lastly,instead of chuckling away you might want to consider the fact that the competition today is simply 'different' so to put.Not better,not worse just different with different types of players who bring different characteristics and their unique styles on a tennis court.

By that standard the competition in the previous eras was no better or worse than today's, and I don't believe that to be the case. Anyway I don't think placing a player's competition over another's is necessarily diminishing his accomplishments. Note that I never call some of these players "clowns" or say the player "sucked" on one surface or against another player. You can either disagree that the competition is stronger today or argue that Fed would've still dominated the current field. I'm not stopping anybody. Who knows, I might even be convinced, but the counterpoints I've heard (not just here, BTW) aren't very convincing.

 

[NonP]

Sure,I'm not writing him off,he's still relatively young.I don't think he played the tennis he's capable of this year aside from clay masters but on the top level sometimes all it takes is one big win for a player to get on a roll.He also's rumored to be changing coaches(he's going to start work with Todd Martin)which might turn out for the better in the long run,maybe he got all he can from Vajda and it's time to move on.

Isn't Todd Martin already working with Djokovic? Anyway I like this kid's game and hope he'll turn it around without another colossal blunder, like changing his racquet only a few weeks before defending his sole Slam title.

I can agree with that,Tsonga playing like he did in 2008 AO SF would have a good shot against 2006 AO Fed.While having probably his best year ever in 2006 overall,Fed didn't play at that high of a level in AO that year as his matches with Kolja(in which Kolja had chances to go 2-1 up)Bagdathis(was up a set and a break),Haas(got pushed to five)and even Kiefer showed.He won AO that year without playing his best tennis,his level at 3 other slams was much higher IMO.

No serious disagreement here.

 

[mandy01]

No, I say Rafa wasn't in his prime on grass in '07 because he lost two sets to both Soderling and Youzhny on his way to the final. But let's ignore the stats for the time being. Is there anyone here who would deny that Rafa in '08 was at least a notch or two above himself in '07? It's really no contest. Ditto with his prime on hard courts.

By using your logic Federer lost to Nadal at this year's AO simply because he isnt in his prime anymore and its tougher to go against the top guys when thats the case :wink:
You still dont understand the difference between 'peak' and 'prime'.

And we should indeed consider the individual surfaces when evaluating a player's prime. Every player develops differently with regard to the surface, and that's certainly the case with Rafa, just as with Borg and Sampras who didn't gain a solid footing on grass until '76 and '93, respectively.

No its a convenient argument you want to put up to excuse a player's failures.Like I pointed out , if you want to use it its going to work both ways.

Not sure which players I left out. I did fail to mention Safin and Nalbandian, and in fact those are the only two players from Fed's dominant years who I think merit comparison to Djokovic, Murray and now del Potro. First of all, Nalby was still a factor until earlier this year, and I don't think I need to explain Safin's legendary inconsistency, though part of it was due to injuries. His prime coincided with Fed's for one year at most, between the Australian Opens in '04 and '05, and even this is stretching the definition of "prime," as his results in between were mediocre except in the '04 indoor season.

Now this is kinda funny.First off-How are Djokovic or Murray any better than Safin,Hewitt ,Nalbandian and others?They have still not showed respectable results in slams-including Del Potro ( though I think he's well on his way).Tell me what great competition they managed to provide Nadal with? Last time I checked,Nadal still owns them and they are still not consistent on all the surfaces.
Conversely,Safin,Hewitt,Roddick all were slam winners. and Hewitt and Nalbo both had leading H2H over Roger but Roger eventually managed to pass them.Not to mention the fact that Djokovic has STILL not defended a single title in his life.

By that standard the competition in the previous eras was no better or worse than today's, and I don't believe that to be the case. Anyway I don't think placing a player's competition over another's is necessarily diminishing his accomplishments. Note that I never call some of these players "clowns" or say the player "sucked" on one surface or against another player. You can either disagree that the competition is no stronger today or argue that Fed would've still dominated the current field. I'm not stopping anybody. Who knows, I might even be convinced, but the counterpoints I've heard (not just here, BTW) aren't very convincing .

I dont suppose I could call your points convincing either.

All in all even if you argue either way-you actually end up proving Federer is the better player and quite above the rest of the field yet again because if we are to believe your claims,Federer still has better results where it counts most unlike any of these so called 'stronger' contenders.

 

[NonP]

By using your logic Federer lost to Nadal at this year's AO simply because he isnt in his prime anymore and its tougher to go against the top guys when thats the case :wink:
You still dont understand the difference between 'peak' and 'prime'.

No, that's a figment of your imagination. Nadal wasn't at his peak AND in his prime on grass in '07. A prime Rafa, at his peak or not, wouldn't have lost to Mahut on grass except on very bad days.

No its a convenient argument you want to put up to excuse a player's failures.Like I pointed out , if you want to use it its going to work both ways.

Many posters bought this "convenient" argument the first time I made it, on a previous thread.

Now this is kinda funny.First off-How are Djokovic or Murray any better than Safin,Hewitt ,Nalbandian and others?They have still not showed respectable results in slams-including Del Potro ( though I think he's well on his way).Tell me what great competition they managed to provide Nadal with? Last time I checked,Nadal still owns them and they are still not consistent on all the surfaces.
Conversely,Safin,Hewitt,Roddick all were slam winners. and Hewitt and Nalbo both had leading H2H over Roger but Roger eventually managed to pass them.Not to mention the fact that Djokovic has STILL not defended a single title in his life.

I never said Djokovic and Murray are better. Again, Nalbandian was still a factor until earlier this year, and Safin's prime coincided with Fed's for one year at most. And Roddick is still going strong the last time I checked. Only Hewitt I wouldn't put in the same class as Djokovic and Murray, despite his 2 Slams which were won in between the Sampras and Fed eras. Don't forget Djokovic and Murray still have many years left in them.

 

[NonP]

All in all even if you argue either way-you actually end up proving Federer is the better player and quite above the rest of the field yet again because if we are to believe your claims,Federer still has better results where it counts most unlike any of these so called 'stronger' contenders.

I dunno what you're talking about. We're talking about Fed's competition, not Fed vs. these contenders.

 

[mandy01]

No, that's a figment of your imagination. Nadal wasn't at his peak AND in his prime on grass in '07. A prime Rafa, at his peak or not, wouldn't have lost to Mahut on grass.

Last time I checked Nadal made two Wimbledon finals before eventually winning.You're doing nothing but employing double standards.
Like I said,using your logic,Federer isnt in his prime on HC anymore.Afterall, he lost two sets to Berdych this year.

Many posters bought this "convenient" argument the first time I made it, on a previous thread.

Not many posters.Just *******s.I for one dont buy double standards.

I never said Djokovic and Murray are better. Again, Nalbandian was still a factor until earlier this year, and Safin's prime coincided with Fed's for one year at most. And Roddick is still going strong the last time I checked. Only Hewitt I wouldn't put in the same class as Djokovic and Murray, despite his 2 Slams which were won in between the Sampras and Fed eras. Don't forget Djokovic and Murray still have many years left in them.

That dosent make the CURRENT competition any stronger than what it was.Nor is it a given that both of them will essentially deliver as expected .As for Hewitt-He played quite well even after the years in which he won slams.I would much rather take Hewitt above these two right now.

 

[mandy01]

I dunno what you're talking about. We're talking about Fed's competition, not Fed vs. these contenders.

It was an afterthought..not a part of the argument :wink:

 

[BorisRogerFan]

Federer is the MEMYUC, 'el mejor del mundo y del universo conocido', (world and known universe's best')

 

[NonP]

Last time I checked Nadal made two Wimbledon finals before eventually winning.You're doing nothing but employing double standards.
Like I said,using your logic,Federer isnt in his prime on HC anymore.Afterall, he lost two sets to Berdych this year.

One could say Fed is still in his prime, but wasn't at his peak Down Under this year. His subsequent matches against del Potro and Roddick were vintage Fed.

Not many posters.Just *******s.I for one dont but double standards.

Even JennyS revised her analysis afterward. I'm not sure you can call her a *******.

That dosent make the CURRENT competition any stronger than what it was.Nor is it a given that both of them will essentially deliver as expected .As for Hewitt-He played quite well even after the years in which he won slams.I would much rather take Hewitt above these two right now.

Now this is why I made the distinction between greater and better. Nobody denies that Hewitt has greater achievements, but many would say Murray and Djokovic are better players.

It was an afterthought..not a part of the argument :wink:

OK.

 

[mandy01]

One could say Fed is still in his prime, but wasn't at his peak Down Under this year. His subsequent matches against del Potro and Roddick were vintage Fed.

One could say the same about Nadal as well.
As for the two matches you mentioned,incidently those were the only two matches in which Federer played really well this whole HC season IMO and two of the very few matches he managed to serve effectively throughout the first half of the season.I could easily argue that just two matches are hardly indicative of his prime.
That said,I'm not interested in this 'prime or not' argument.If you lose,you just lose.Period.
I like arguing about tennis match-ups because thats where one really gets to understand the game even more but these kinds of arguments are simply put annoying and can never really be objective.

Even JennyS revised her analysis afterward. I'm not sure you can call her a *******.

I really dont know what kind of an argument you got into with her , but I dont buy your argument ,thats for sure.Its too one-sided to show any hint of objectivity.

Now this is why I made the distinction between greater and better. Nobody denies that Hewitt has greater achievements, but many would say Murray and Djokovic are better players.

I'm not sure.I dont think most who've watched Hewitt play would say that.Hewitt is one of the forgotten players now so you might find people agreeing with you but I dont.
Murray resorts to counter-punching these days so if we are to compare the two I would say Hewitt of past beats him on that :wink:
Besides,I dont know what your definition of 'better' player is nor do I want to get into that.

 

[Rippy]

Technique or not, how bad can you be if you're #1? And win slams? (Granted he only won them because the real #1 bailed out but that's another story...)

Nobody said Federer was bad now, just past his peak.

 

[NonP]

One could say the same about Nadal as well.
As for the two matches you mentioned,incidently those were the only two matches in which Federer played really well this whole HC season IMO and two of the very few matches he managed to serve effectively throughout the first half of the season.I could easily argue that just two matches are hardly indicative of his prime.

As I said earlier, I grant that Fed's form has dipped, but not as much as many here suggest. I believe rod99, a Fed fan himself, would back me up on this. Anyway let's just disagree. It looks like we won't see eye to eye on this matter.

I really dont know what kind of an argument you got into with her , but I dont buy your argument ,thats for sure.Its too one-sided to show any hint of objectivity.

FYI she argued that Nadal's prime started when he won the FO in '05, and I said she ignored the surface issue. Even NamRanger, who as you may have noticed isn't my biggest fan, agreed with me on this. I dunno what you find so "one-sided" about it. I like both Fed and Rafa just fine.

I'm not sure.I dont think most who've watched Hewitt play would say that.Hewitt is one of the forgotten players now so you might find people agreeing with you but I dont.
Murray resorts to counter-punching these days so if we are to compare the two I would say Hewitt of past beats him on that :wink:
Besides,I dont know what your definition of 'better' player is nor do I want to get into that.

Hewitt in his prime was great in movement and passing shots, but power was never one of his strengths and his ground strokes weren't deemed exceptional even in his dominant years. It's no wonder why he became a victim of the current power baseline era.

Also Hewitt himself is a counter-puncher, as are Murray and Nadal for that matter. Granted Nadal is more offensive than Murray, but I'd say both have better ground strokes off both wings than Hewitt. And better movement, too, though Murray vs. Hewitt is debatable.

 

[NonP]

I forgot Hewitt's return of serve. I'd say he does beat Nadal in this category (Rafa mostly chips the serve back, though he does get many balls in), but not Murray.

 

[mandy01]

As I said earlier, I grant that Fed's form has dipped, but not as much as many here suggest. I believe rod99, a Fed fan himself, would back me up on this. Anyway let's just disagree. It looks like we won't see eye to eye on this matter.

Even I did not suggest that Federer is 'bad' today.But its obvious there are a lot of aspects in his game that have declined and while the kind of adjustments he's made so far allow him to be consistent ,he's easier to break down for the top players.That does not excuse him for losing the AO final because like I said if you lose,you lose.Period.-And the credit fully goes to Nadal.

FYI she argued that Nadal's prime started when he won the FO in '05, and I said she ignored the surface issue. Even NamRanger, who as you may have noticed isn't my biggest fan, agreed with me on this. I dunno what you find so "one-sided" about it. I like both Fed and Rafa just fine.

I've read some of your previous posts so I know you're not a staunch follower of either but like I said the surface issue can be argued both ways and I stand by it.I simply dont see why Nadal should be excused of not being in his prime until he actually won a slam on HC and grass.You could say he's hit his peak now but I do believe he was in his prime based on his overall results.

Hewitt in his prime was great in movement and passing shots, but power was never one of his strengths and his ground strokes weren't deemed exceptional even in his dominant years. It's no wonder why he became a victim of the current power baseline era.

Also Hewitt himself is a counter-puncher, as are Murray and Nadal for that matter. Granted Nadal is more offensive than Murray, but I'd say both have better ground strokes off both wings than Hewitt. And better movement, too, though Murray vs. Hewitt is debatable.

His BH was deemed as one of the best strokes in his best years FYI though his FH was never great-which for instance,Murray's isnt either.
I know Hewitt is a counter-puncher thats why I siad he beats Murray at it.
I think Hewitt was a better mover but then again Murray can improve.
Hewitt is most certainly not as strong as Nadal so there's no question of a comparison.
ROS-Murray is better.I agree.

 

[NonP]

Even I did not suggest that Federer is 'bad' today.But its obvious there are a lot of aspects in his game that have declined and while the kind of adjustments he's made so far allow him to be consistent ,he's easier to break down for the top players.That does not excuse him for losing the AO final because like I said if you lose,you lose.Period.-And the credit fully goes to Nadal.

No serious disagreement here, as long as we're clear on the distinction between greater and better.

I've read some of your previous posts so I know you're not a staunch follower of either but like I said the surface issue can be argued both ways and I stand by it.I simply dont see why Nadal should be excused of not being in his prime until he actually won a slam on HC and grass.You could say he's hit his peak now but I do believe he was in his prime based on his overall results.

Because, again, every player develops differently with regard to the surface, or the years, for that matter. Nobody seriously claims that Borg entered his prime when he won the FO in '74. Ditto with Sampras' USO victory in '90. For the sake of fairness I'd also say Fed's prime on clay started later than his prime on grass and hard courts.

His BH was deemed as one of the best strokes in his best years FYI though his FH was never great-which for instance,Murray's isnt either.
I know Hewitt is a counter-puncher thats why I siad he beats Murray at it.
I think Hewitt was a better mover but then again Murray can improve.
Hewitt is most certainly not as strong as Nadal so there's no question of a comparison.
ROS-Murray is better.I agree.

I don't remember Hewitt's BH being mentioned in the same breath as that of Kuerten, Safin or even Gaudio, and I seriously doubt Hewitt would beat Murray at counter-punching, certainly not on HCs. Nobody beats Murray in defense on the hard stuff, not even Nadal, and Andy's better than Rusty in defending with a closed-stance FH. And Hewitt in his prime may be a tad quicker, but as you know speed doesn't equal movement. Murray's movement on clay is still a question mark, but like you I expect him to improve in this area.

 

[mandy01]

Because, again, every player develops differently with regard to the surface, or the years, for that matter. Nobody seriously claims that Borg entered his prime when he won the FO in '74. Ditto with Sampras' USO victory in '90. For the sake of fairness I'd also say Fed's prime on clay started later than his prime on grass and hard courts.



I don't remember Hewitt's BH being mentioned in the same breath as that of Kuerten, Safin or even Gaudio, and I seriously doubt Hewitt would beat Murray at counter-punching, certainly not on HCs. Nobody beats Murray in defense on the hard stuff, not even Nadal, and Andy's better than Rusty in defending with a closed-stance FH. And Hewitt in his prime may be a tad quicker, but as you know speed doesn't equal movement. Murray moves well both horizontally and vertically.

First paragraph-I said before I'll say it again,I simply dont buy the argument.And like I said its going to work both ways.I can now safely say,that Federer is no longer in his prime on HC :wink:

Second paragraph-Conversely I heard a lot of people praising it.Just yesterday Doug Adler said that it was his BH that was such an important factor in his two year reign as the no1.
I do believe Hewitt at his best was a better mover and that showed in his results many a times-Infact most of his game revolves around his legs-and I'm not interested in only the hard stuff.I'm talking of his overall movement.
Murray moves well but I dont think he moves better than Hewitt of the past .I just dont because he suddenly goes passive( which indicates inconsistency) which never happened with Hewitt.

 

[NonP]

First paragraph-I said before I'll say it again,I simply dont buy the argument.And like I said its going to work both ways.I can now safely say,that Federer is no longer in his prime on HC :wink:

Again, let's disagree on Fed's current form.

Second paragraph-Conversely I heard a lot of people praising it.Just yesterday Doug Adler said that it was his BH that was such an important factor in his two year reign as the no1.

Even if that's true, I doubt that years from now many people will be talking about Hewitt's BH in the same sentence as that of Kuerten, Nalbandian and, yes, Murray. Andy's BH is the best in business right now.

I do believe Hewitt at his best was a better mover and that showed in his results many a times-Infact most of his game revolves around his legs-and I'm not interested in only the hard stuff.I'm talking of his overall movement.
Murray moves well but I dont think he moves better than Hewitt of the past .I just dont because he suddenly goes passive( which indicates inconsistency) which never happened with Hewitt.

I added the sentence about Murray's questionable movement on clay. But so far neither player hasn't been exactly a FO contender, hence the focus on the hard courts (and grass, by extension).

 

[mandy01]

Again, let's disagree on Fed's current form.



Even if that's true, I doubt that years from now many people will be talking about Hewitt's BH in the same sentence as that of Kuerten, Nalbandian and, yes, Murray. Andy's BH is the best in business right now.



I added the sentence about Murray's questionable movement on clay. But so far neither player hasn't been exactly a FO contender, hence the focus on the hard courts (and grass, by extension).

I suppose we should disagree on Nadal's form then and Federer's form now :wink:

I dont see many people talking about Murray's BH either, actually.Its great but not ground-breaking stuff.It is still prone to inconsistency.I see most people talk of his tactics and his ability to read the game which I agree is better.

I would say they're pretty much equal on HC with a slight edge to Murray (which is still debateable) .On grass I'll have to give it to Hewitt as of now.I've seen nothing special from Murray there as yet.
I also think Hewitt in his best years served better than Murray.

 

[Enigma_87]

Also Hewitt himself is a counter-puncher, as are Murray and Nadal for that matter. Granted Nadal is more offensive than Murray, but I'd say both have better ground strokes off both wings than Hewitt. And better movement, too, though Murray vs. Hewitt is debatable.

That's ridiculous, I mean Murray. How is Murray better mover than peak Hewitt? Better strokes off both wings? Fh too?

From 03 till AO06 he was losing to top players and/or eventual slam winners in all grand slams he participated in. He was beat Sampras and Roddick in his US win. How's Murray better than 2 times GS champion, 2 times TMC winner and a former #1? How's Murray even close to Hewitt(for now) as he didn't beat any top player this year at slams(got beaten by the first top player he met - Verdasco, GOnzo and Roddick). His best GS performance was last year USO when he beat Nadal and was a roadkill for Federer afterward..

Hewitt and I mean prime Hewitt was one hell of a mover back then. Murray is quite quick and has class footwork, but by no means is a better mover than Hewitt was.

And out of the guys you left out, there's one guy, Agassi. He wasn't a bad player you know, especially in his late career(30's) when he met Federer 11 times.

 

[NonP]

I suppose we should disagree on Nadal's form then and Federer's form now :wink:

I dont see many people talking about Murray's BH either, actually.Its great but not ground-breaking stuff.It is still prone to inconsistency.

I would say they're pretty much equal on HC with a slight edge to Murray (which is still debateable) .On grass I'll have to give it to Hewitt as of now.I've seen nothing special from Murray there as yet.
I also think Hewitt in his best years served better than Murray.

Well, Murray's BH may not be ground-breaking but it's quite a shot, and I say this as someone who's not very partial to two-handed BHs.

As for the serve, depends on Murray's 1st-serve percentage. Murray's 1st serve is better than Hewitt's, but Andy's 2nd serve remains his biggest liability. Anyway as long as he serves over 60% I'll say Murray has the clear edge here.

 

[NonP]

That's ridiculous, I mean Murray. How is Murray better mover than peak Hewitt? Better strokes off both wings? Fh too?

I see you're back again. So you really think Hewitt's movement and FH are so much better? On what basis?

From 03 till AO06 he was losing to top players and/or eventual slam winners in all grand slams he participated in. He was beat Sampras and Roddick in his US win. How's Murray better than 2 times GS champion, 2 times TMC winner and a former #1? How's Murray even close to Hewitt(for now) as he didn't beat any top player this year at slams(got beaten by the first top player he met - Verdasco, GOnzo and Roddick). His best GS performance was last year USO when he beat Nadal and was a roadkill for Federer afterward..

Roddick was nowhere near his prime back then, and Sampras was spent in the final having gone through a nightmare draw, unlike in the previous year when he simply got thrashed by Safin. Note what I said about greater vs. better.

Hewitt and I mean prime Hewitt was one hell of a mover back then. Murray is quite quick and has class footwork, but by no means is a better mover than Hewitt was.

I said Hewitt vs. Murray is debatable in this area. Again, what do you think makes Hewitt so emphatically better in movement? Speed? Well, guess what. There's no better defender on HCs than Murray right now, including Nadal who's a better mover than Hewitt. This is why I caution against comparing players by breaking down their game to a few select shots and other areas.

And out of the guys you left out, there's one guy, Agassi. He wasn't a bad player you know, especially in his late career(30's) when he met Federer 11 times.

Here you do have a legitimate point. Yeah, I forgot Agassi. BTW, since you're so passionate about comparing players' movement correctly I should also mention that Andre was at least one step or two slower in his late career.

 

[Enigma_87]

I see you're back again. So you really think Hewitt's movement and FH are so much better? On what basis?

Better footwork, par speed.

Roddick was nowhere near his prime back then, and Sampras was spent in the final having gone through a nightmare draw, unlike in the previous year when he simply got thrashed by Safin. Note what I said about greater vs. better.

Sampras had even worse draw in 02, when he beat Agassi in that final, was he spent then? ROddick wasn't in his prime, yes, but still tough to beat.

I said Hewitt vs. Murray is debatable in this area. Again, what do you think makes Hewitt so emphatically better in movement? Speed? Well, guess what. There's no better defender on HCs than Murray right now, including Nadal who's a better mover than Hewitt. This is why I caution against comparing players by breaking down their game to a few select shots and other areas.

Hewitt and Murray play quite alike, as you said it yourself. We are yet to see Murray beating the best players in slams. Hewitt in his prime was the fastest guy on tour, along with Coria maybe. As I said he has imo better footwork, especially on grass where the movement and footwork is essential.

Here you do have a legitimate point. Yeah, I forgot Agassi. BTW, since you're so passionate about comparing players' movement correctly I should also mention that Andre was at least one step or two slower in his late career.

He lost a step or two, but was much more consistent and mature. He may lost some of his speed but his footwork after 99 was better.

 

[lessthanjake]

I do expect Nadal to add to his resume, but I don't know how much. I put little stock in long-term predictions.

Interesting because I said that Nadal has never been as dominant as Federer. You said that his career wasnt over. I said I don't see him ever being as dominant as Federer was. Your response: you dont put much stock in long term predictions. Well, then why did you imply that you thought Nadal could later become as dominant as Federer was? Sounds like a prediction to me, buddy.

Fallacious. Nadal's prime on all surfaces didn't start until '08, Djokovic's breakthrough came in the late summer of '07, Murray's came in '08, and del Potro didn't become a contender until this year. And we still have many of the same top guns from '04-'07, particularly Roddick who many assert is playing better than ever.

Yeah, but players like Hewitt, for instance, aren't playing as well. Same with Nalbandian. So yeah, some players are playing better, but plenty of others are playing worse. That's how tennis works year to year.

Thats not the point though. THe point is that Federer and Nadal have played against the same pool of players since 2005 (or 2008 if you wanna say thats when Nadal hit his prime) when Nadal got good. Nadal has lost in slams to lesser players in that pool. Federer hasnt.

It matters little whether they're 2nd-tier players or not, especially when they happen to be streaky like Soderling, Gonzalez and Baghdatis (who, BTW, was the '06 AO finalist). Why do you think you brought up the playing level of Fed's opponents on the given day? Tsonga simply played the best tennis of his career in the '08 AO SF, and if you can't see that we'd better end this discussion now. Gonzalez is the only one of the three players you mentioned who I admit didn't suffer the 1st-time Slam blues in the '07 AO final, but even here I'd say he played noticeably better against Rafa.

It DOES matter if they are 2nd tier because being vulnerable to 2nd tier players playing well means you are vulnerable in the earlier rounds where you might meet such a player. Hence, for instance, Nadal's two losses in the last 2 years in the 4th round of slams.

Also, I don't think Baghdatis played badly in his AO final against Fed as you implied. It's not particularly important, but that match was no cakewalk, despite Federer playing well.

I said "straw man" because I never said "NONE of Federer's 2nd tier opponents have played great matches against him." And like I said, Nadal's career isn't over yet, and he lost to Ferrer at the '07 USO when he had yet to enter his prime on HCs. You're being highly selective in your comparison.

I know you didnt say that exactly. But you did try to act like lesser players only play well against Nadal. It was implied, though not explicitly stated. I needed to point out how ridiculous that is in order to cement my argument.

Anyways, when you talk about Nadal's hard court prime, you are only including 3 slams. That limits what we can talk about greatly, so that your argument is artificially strengthened. But it is still a fail. In one of those 3, he lost to a 2nd tier player. And of course, he recently lost to Soderling at the French.

Regardless, you are right. Nadal's career isn't over. Bump this thread up when Nadal gets as consistently dominant over lower ranked players as Federer is. It won't happen.

It is partially a function of the style Nadal plays. When you play a defensive style, you CAN be beaten by a hard hitting risk taker who has a really good day (ie. Soderling, Tsonga) even if you would usually beat that player. Nadal's defensive style is more dependent on whether the opponent is having a good day. A lesser opponent WILL sometimes have a really good day, and not make the UEs that Nadal needs an opponent to make in order to win. On the other hand, Federer plays a more attacking game. Matches are, therefore, far more on his racket than Nadal's matches are. He doesnt depend on the other player messing up. He depends on himself making his shots, which allows him to dominate inconsistent lower ranked players in a way Nadal cant.

 

[NonP]

Better footwork, par speed.

Not on HCs. Will explain shortly.

Sampras had even worse draw in 02, when he beat Agassi in that final, was he spent then? ROddick wasn't in his prime, yes, but still tough to beat.

Worse draw? Yeah, I'm sure Sampras would've been more reluctant to play Rusedski, Haas, (knee-taped) Roddick and Agassi than Rafter, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt in consecutive rounds. In fact Pete himself mentions in his book that he was exhausted in the '01 final after the tough scraps, and this is one of the rare times he brings up extenuating circumstances in the book. The '01 USO final wasn't unlike the '96 FO SF meltdown against Kafelnikov: competitive for one set, and then fading away in the rest of the match.

As for Roddick in '01, you can bet that Sampras would've rather played him than Andre.

Hewitt and Murray play quite alike, as you said it yourself. We are yet to see Murray beating the best players in slams. Hewitt in his prime was the fastest guy on tour, along with Coria maybe. As I said he has imo better footwork, especially on grass where the movement and footwork is essential.

Both Hewitt and Murray are counter-punchers, and what do counter-punchers do? That’s right, they retrieve balls. And like I said Murray retrieves better than anyone on HCs. Not even Nadal can top him in getting the balls back on the hard stuff. That should tell you volumes about his footwork. And Murray hasn’t gone further at Wimbledon not because of his inferior footwork to Hewitt, but because he got knocked out by an on-fire Nadal in ’08 and served like crap against Roddick in ’09.

He lost a step or two, but was much more consistent and mature. He may lost some of his speed but his footwork after 99 was better.

His speed and footwork were noticeably worse in his last years, certainly after the early '00s. If you have any old videos of pre-'97 Agassi I suggest you revisit a few and compare his movement back then with his movement in '05.

 

[mandy01]

Well, Murray's BH may not be ground-breaking but it's quite a shot, and I say this as someone who's not very partial to two-handed BHs.

As for the serve, depends on Murray's 1st-serve percentage. Murray's 1st serve is better than Hewitt's, but Andy's 2nd serve remains his biggest liability. Anyway as long as he serves over 60% I'll say Murray has the clear edge here.

Of course his BH is quite a shot.So was Hewitt's.

I would take Hewitt's serve over Murray's any day.Way more consistent and reliable.

 

[NonP]

Interesting because I said that Nadal has never been as dominant as Federer. You said that his career wasnt over. I said I don't see him ever being as dominant as Federer was. Your response: you dont put much stock in long term predictions. Well, then why did you imply that you thought Nadal could later become as dominant as Federer was? Sounds like a prediction to me, buddy.

I said I put "little" stock in half-baked long-term predictions like yours. And it's hardly relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Fed. He's already halfway to the exclusive GOAT club, and like I said the competition is now tougher.

Yeah, but players like Hewitt, for instance, aren't playing as well. Same with Nalbandian. So yeah, some players are playing better, but plenty of others are playing worse. That's how tennis works year to year.

Thats not the point though. THe point is that Federer and Nadal have played against the same pool of players since 2005 (or 2008 if you wanna say thats when Nadal hit his prime) when Nadal got good. Nadal has lost in slams to lesser players in that pool. Federer hasnt.

I've already addressed this. Again it's not the same pool of players, and even if it is you're ignoring the future improvements and growing resumes of Murray, Djokovic, del Potro and other young 'uns. Unless Fed remains on or near the top of the tour as long as Agassi it's Nadal who will have to deal with these top dogs. Heck, we may see not one but numerous greats at the same time a la the '80s.

It DOES matter if they are 2nd tier because being vulnerable to 2nd tier players playing well means you are vulnerable in the earlier rounds where you might meet such a player. Hence, for instance, Nadal's two losses in the last 2 years in the 4th round of slams.

Also, I don't think Baghdatis played badly in his AO final against Fed as you implied. It's not particularly important, but that match was no cakewalk, despite Federer playing well.

I meant whether or not they're 2nd-tier players matters little on a given day. Do I have to spell everything out? Gonzalez's and Tsonga's performance in the respective '07 and '08 AO matches against Nadal is hardly representative of their "normal" level of play. I don't think Baghdatis played "badly" against Fed, but not as well as those two against Nadal. It's easier to fire on all cylinders in the earlier rounds than in the final, especially when the player happens to be a virgin finalist like Gonzalez (and Tsonga, against Djokovic). If anything this actually weakens your argument because it explains why Nadal went out in an earlier round.

I know you didnt say that exactly. But you did try to act like lesser players only play well against Nadal. It was implied, though not explicitly stated. I needed to point out how ridiculous that is in order to cement my argument.

I neither stated nor implied this. I certainly grant that Safin and Djokovic played well against Fed in the '05 and 08 AO SFs, and Roddick also in the '04 Wimby final (at least before the rain delay), to name 3 examples.

Anyways, when you talk about Nadal's hard court prime, you are only including 3 slams. That limits what we can talk about greatly, so that your argument is artificially strengthened. But it is still a fail. In one of those 3, he lost to a 2nd tier player. And of course, he recently lost to Soderling at the French.

Regardless, you are right. Nadal's career isn't over. Bump this thread up when Nadal gets as consistently dominant over lower ranked players as Federer is. It won't happen.

Again, it's hardly relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Fed, and whether he lost to a 2nd-tier player on a given day. See above. And it's still uncertain how much Nadal's tendinitis had to do with his loss to Soderling at RG. (My guess is that it's a little bit of both his knee problems and Soderling's performance.)

It is partially a function of the style Nadal plays. When you play a defensive style, you CAN be beaten by a hard hitting risk taker who has a really good day (ie. Soderling, Tsonga) even if you would usually beat that player. Nadal's defensive style is more dependent on whether the opponent is having a good day. A lesser opponent WILL sometimes have a really good day, and not make the UEs that Nadal needs an opponent to make in order to win. On the other hand, Federer plays a more attacking game. Matches are, therefore, far more on his racket than Nadal's matches are. He doesnt depend on the other player messing up. He depends on himself making his shots, which allows him to dominate inconsistent lower ranked players in a way Nadal cant.

This is a simplistic description of Nadal's game. FYI Rafa can switch between defense and offense in one fell swoop because he has a larger margin of error than anyone in the game. No one has hit ground strokes with more accuracy than Rafa. And saying Fed plays a more attacking game than Nadal is like saying George is a more famous Beatle than Ringo.

 

[NonP]

Of course his BH is quite a shot.So was Hewitt's.

I would take Hewitt's serve over Murray's any day.Way more consistent and reliable.

Let's just disagree. I don't see Hewitt's BH in the same league as Murray's. To me it's not even close. The serve is more iffy as Murray's serve is indeed rather inconsistent (but not that more inconsistent). I'd still take Murray's 'cause it can serve as a weapon on good days.

 

[Enigma_87]

Not on HCs. Will explain shortly.

Worse draw? Yeah, I'm sure Sampras would've been more reluctant to play Rusedski, Haas, (knee-taped) Roddick and Agassi than Rafter, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt in consecutive rounds. In fact Pete himself mentions in his book that he was exhausted in the '01 final after the tough scraps, and this is one of the rare times he brings up extenuating circumstances in the book. The '01 USO final wasn't unlike the '96 FO SF meltdown against Kafelnikov: competitive for one set, and then fading away in the rest of the match.

By worse I meant even tougher. The amount of time on court was about the same in 01 and 02. I don't think the USO can be compared to RG in terms of conditions.

As for Roddick in '01, you can bet that Sampras would've rather played him than Andre.

Agree

Both Hewitt and Murray are counter-punchers, and what do counter-punchers do? That’s right, they retrieve balls. And like I said Murray retrieves better than anyone on HCs. Not even Nadal can top him in getting the balls back on the hard stuff. That should tell you volumes about his footwork. And Murray hasn’t gone further at Wimbledon not because of his inferior footwork to Hewitt, but because he got knocked out by an on-fire Nadal in ’08 and served like crap against Roddick in ’09.

I guess you haven't watched the early Hewitt when he was retrieving balls against Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, etc.. And I don't think you remember how fast Hewitt was at the time.
Murray indeed is yet to show better footwork on grass, as you seem to fail to mention that he should have been taken out by Wawrinka in the opening rounds, but he choked in the 5th.

His speed and footwork were noticeably worse in his last years, certainly after the early '00s. If you have any old videos of pre-'97 Agassi I suggest you revisit a few and compare his movement back then with his movement in '05.

As I said he may have lost a step or two, but was more mature and his experience helped him covering the courts just fine.

 

[lessthanjake]

I said I put "little" stock in half-baked long-term predictions like yours. And it's hardly relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Fed. He's already halfway to the exclusive GOAT club, and like I said the competition is now tougher.

It IS relevant if you are trying to say that Nadal is a better overall player than Federer. If he never hits the level of dominance that Federer did, then the argument for Nadal is pretty weak.

I've already addressed this. Again it's not the same pool of players, and even if it is you're ignoring the future improvements and growing resumes of Murray, Djokovic, del Potro and other young 'uns. Unless Fed remains on or near the top of the tour as long as Agassi it's Nadal who will have to deal with these top dogs. Heck, we may see not one but numerous greats at the same time a la the '80s.

Oh my goodness. Honestly...???

"Again its not the same pool of players"????? Good god, WHEN THEY HAVE PLAYED IN THE SAME YEARS THEY ARE PLAYING AGAINST THE SAME POOL OF PLAYERS! How much simpler can it be?

Yes, if Federer retires and Nadal still is playing, then Nadal will end up playing against different pools of players eventually. But as of now, their careers COMPLETELY overlap. That means they play agains the same pool of players.

I meant whether or not they're 2nd-tier players matters little on a given day. Do I have to spell everything out? Gonzalez's and Tsonga's performance in the respective '07 and '08 AO matches against Nadal is hardly representative of their "normal" level of play. I don't think Baghdatis played "badly" against Fed, but not as well as those two against Nadal. It's easier to fire on all cylinders in the earlier rounds than in the final, especially when the player happens to be a virgin finalist like Gonzalez (and Tsonga, against Djokovic). If anything this actually weakens your argument because it explains why Nadal went out in an earlier round.

Okay but Tsonga's peak performance level is lower than the peak performance level of a player like Nadal or Safin or Djokovic. Federer doesn't lose to players like Tsonga even at their best. He ONLY loses to the best players playing their best. Nadal loses to lesser players playing their best.

And your earlier round argument is just silly. It would be ridiculous to think that Federer hasnt played lower tier players playing really really well in earlier rounds. He has. He has just beaten them and no one has thought anything about it because there was no upset.

Try again.

Again, it's hardly relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Fed, and whether he lost to a 2nd-tier player on a given day. See above. And it's still uncertain how much Nadal's tendinitis had to do with his loss to Soderling at RG. (My guess is that it's a little bit of both his knee problems and Soderling's performance.)

And it is uncertain how much Federer's mono had to do with his loss to Djokovic at the AO in 2008. The fact is, they both played, and they both lost.

Anyways, though, it IS relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Federer. If Nadal never does, then it is really tough to argue that Nadal is a better player than Federer.

This is a simplistic description of Nadal's game. FYI Rafa can switch between defense and offense in one fell swoop because he has a larger margin of error than anyone in the game. No one has hit ground strokes with more accuracy than Rafa. And saying Fed plays a more attacking game than Nadal is like saying George is a more famous Beatle than Ringo.

Nadal has been getting more aggressive. He is doing that to limit the problem I talked about, to adapt to hard courts, and to limit the wear and tear on his body.

But at his heart, he is a defensive player. Defensive players put the game on the other player's racket. This makes you more vulnerable to an opposing player's great day than a player like Federer is who puts the game on his own racket. This is why Nadal can be more easily beaten by 2nd tier players who play an aggressive style and happen to be dialed in that day.

 

[NonP]

By worse I meant even tougher. The amount of time on court was about the same in 01 and 02. I don't think the USO can be compared to RG in terms of conditions.

It's fallacious to judge the difficulty of a match by the amount of time on court. You really wanna argue Rusedski, Haas and Roddick in '02 were more difficult opponents than Rafter, Agassi and Safin in '01? And unlike in '01 Pete got himself a relatively easy SF opponent in '02. Don't forget there's no day of rest in between the SF and the final at the USO.

As for the FO-USO comparison, my point was not that the conditions are similar, but that Pete was spent in both the '96 FO SF and the '01 USO final. Let's not confuse the two.

I guess you haven't watched the early Hewitt when he was retrieving balls against Sampras, Ivanisevic, Federer, etc.. And I don't think you remember how fast Hewitt was at the time.
Murray indeed is yet to show better footwork on grass, as you seem to fail to mention that he should have been taken out by Wawrinka in the opening rounds, but he choked in the 5th.

You of all people shouldn't accuse anyone of not watching the players in question. Ask any tennis coach who's better at retrieving balls on hard courts, and I bet the majority will tell you it's Murray. And it's also Murray's serve that almost knocked him out in the match against Wawrinka. You can check the stats.

As I said he may have lost a step or two, but was more mature and his experience helped him covering the courts just fine.

You see, this is why I can't help but question your technical understanding of tennis. You said on a previous thread that Nadal can accommodate his game, and now you say Agassi's maturity and experience helped him cover the courts in his late years. It's all boilerplate talk. And what does this have to do with Andre's movement? Anyway if you really think Agassi in '05 was as good as or better than his younger self, fine, believe what you wanna believe.

 

[Enigma_87]

It's fallacious to judge the difficulty of a match by the amount of time on court. You really wanna argue Rusedski, Haas and Roddick in '02 were more difficult opponents than Rafter, Agassi and Safin in '01? And unlike in '01 Pete got himself a relatively easy SF opponent in '02. Don't forget there's no day of rest in between the SF and the final at the USO.

In 01 Pete rather easily brushed aside Rafter and Safin. I don't compare Rusedski to Agassi or whatever, but a 4 hour 5 setter isn't easy, no?

As for the FO-USO comparison, my point was not that the conditions are similar, but that Pete was spent in both the '96 FO SF and the '01 USO final. Let's not confuse the two.

Can't say he was spent at the USO, cause playing in the dirt doesn't even compare playing evening sessions on HC's. If you has played on both surfaces would tel you the same.

You of all people shouldn't accuse anyone of not watching the players in question. Ask any tennis coach who's better at retrieving balls on hard courts, and I bet the majority will tell you it's Murray. And it's also Murray's serve that almost knocked him out in the match against Wawrinka. You can check the stats.

Why change the subject to HC's?Wasn't the main question who was the overall better mover? Since you believe that Murray is better in every department than Hewitt, how come Hewitt had much better results than Murray in slams? I implied that you have not payed much attention to Hewitt's game, as you seem to favor Murray for every shot, and I think this is not the case. I don't need to ask anyone, I can make my own judgement.

You see, this is why I can't help but question your technical understanding of tennis. You said on a previous thread that Nadal can accommodate his game, and now you say Agassi's maturity and experience helped him cover the courts in his late years. It's all boilerplate talk. And what does this have to do with Andre's movement? Anyway if you really think Agassi in '05 was as good as or better than his younger self, fine, believe what you wanna believe.

As I said in numerous threads - Agassi was much more consistent and in his late years was much closer to his peak level(29-30 years) day in and day out.

 

[NonP]

It IS relevant if you are trying to say that Nadal is a better overall player than Federer. If he never hits the level of dominance that Federer did, then the argument for Nadal is pretty weak.

When did I make this argument? Oh, right. I didn't. Read before you respond. Seriously.

Oh my goodness. Honestly...???

"Again its not the same pool of players"????? Good god, WHEN THEY HAVE PLAYED IN THE SAME YEARS THEY ARE PLAYING AGAINST THE SAME POOL OF PLAYERS! How much simpler can it be?

Yes, if Federer retires and Nadal still is playing, then Nadal will end up playing against different pools of players eventually. But as of now, their careers COMPLETELY overlap. That means they play agains the same pool of players.

Fed and Nadal's primes don't overlap, genius. You still don't get it.

Okay but Tsonga's peak performance level is lower than the peak performance level of a player like Nadal or Safin or Djokovic. Federer doesn't lose to players like Tsonga even at their best. He ONLY loses to the best players playing their best. Nadal loses to lesser players playing their best.

Many fans and commentators, including a tennis coach and a sportswriter I know personally, thought Tsonga's demolition of Nadal in the '08 AO SF was the best one-man exhibition of the year. You're just exposing your shallow understanding of the game. And last time I checked '08 was the 1st year Tsonga can be said to have played with a semblance of regularity.

And your earlier round argument is just silly. It would be ridiculous to think that Federer hasnt played lower tier players playing really really well in earlier rounds. He has. He has just beaten them and no one has thought anything about it because there was no upset.

Try again.

Yet another straw man. And can you name some of these “lower tier players playing really really well in earlier rounds”?

BTW since you're such a stickler for stats, I suggest you look at the records of the past majors and see how many streaky players caught fire in the early rounds but flamed out eventually in the final.

Nice try, though.

And it is uncertain how much Federer's mono had to do with his loss to Djokovic at the AO in 2008. The fact is, they both played, and they both lost.

Anyways, though, it IS relevant whether Nadal will become as dominant as Federer. If Nadal never does, then it is really tough to argue that Nadal is a better player than Federer.

I’d actually say Fed’s mono deserves more consideration because it was an issue he had little control over, unlike Nadal’s tendonitis. But of course this nuance generally escapes you and your ilk who put all injuries and health issues under one all-encompassing umbrella.

And again my point wasn’t that Nadal is a better player than Fed.

Nadal has been getting more aggressive. He is doing that to limit the problem I talked about, to adapt to hard courts, and to limit the wear and tear on his body.

But at his heart, he is a defensive player. Defensive players put the game on the other player's racket. This makes you more vulnerable to an opposing player's great day than a player like Federer is who puts the game on his own racket. This is why Nadal can be more easily beaten by 2nd tier players who play an aggressive style and happen to be dialed in that day.

You’re still taking a simplistic view of Nadal’s game and its effects. Comparing two players, let alone two eras, isn’t as easy and clear-cut as you simple-minded fanboys make it out to be. I won’t stop you from sticking to your guns, but please stop burning any more straws and go mingle with your followers unless you actually have new and relevant points to make.

 

[NonP]

In 01 Pete rather easily brushed aside Rafter and Safin. I don't compare Rusedski to Agassi or whatever, but a 4 hour 5 setter isn't easy, no?

Those scraps with Rafter and Safin were not "easy," despite what the scores say. And that 5-setter against Rusedski happened in the 3rd round. Pete's battles with Rafter, Agassi, Safin and Hewitt in '01, OTOH, were in consecutive rounds from the 4th to the final, with no day of rest in between the SF and the final. Do the math.

Can't say he was spent at the USO, cause playing in the dirt doesn't even compare playing evening sessions on HC's. If you has played on both surfaces would tel you the same.

Again, my point wasn't that the conditions at RG and Flushing Meadows are comparable, but that Pete was simply spent in both the '96 and '01 matches. If you still think Pete was fresh throughout the '01 final I dunno what else to tell you.

Why change the subject to HC's?Wasn't the main question who was the overall better mover? Since you believe that Murray is better in every department than Hewitt, how come Hewitt had much better results than Murray in slams? I implied that you have not payed much attention to Hewitt's game, as you seem to favor Murray for every shot, and I think this is not the case. I don't need to ask anyone, I can make my own judgement.

You obviously haven't read my earlier posts. I'm focusing on Hewitt's and Murray's movement on HCs and grass because neither player has been a top player on clay, though I expect Murray to surpass Hewitt in the future. And Hewitt has had better results because he has a more extensive resume while Murray's breakthrough came just last year. We've already gone over this distinction between greater and better a thousand times, and not just on this thread.

As I said in numerous threads - Agassi was much more consistent and in his late years was much closer to his peak level(29-30 years) day in and day out.

Yet another exaggeration. FYI Agassi's most consistent year was '95, and Sampras actually owned him in '99, the only year he finished as no. 1 and was at his "peak level." Pete was in fact the heavy favorite going into the USO but had to pull out due to a herniated disk, thereby missing out on a chance to finish as no. 1 for a record 7 consecutive years. Doesn't sound like so peak-y now, does it?