Greater Hardcourt Player - Fed vs Nole?

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt won his slams against Sampras who was going through the worst period of his career and Nalbandian. Murray won his slams against peak Djokovic. He has also beaten Federer (who just won won Wimbledon) to win his Olympic gold on grass. Not only that Murray has 9 mastes 1000, Hewitt has 2. Murray has 6 GS finals, Hewitt has 4. Murray has beaten all the big 3, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic at slams and BO5. Hewitt at his beat would not have.

Hewitt's beaten Nadal, Federer and Sampras on grass. All in their primes. I'd say that's at least equal to Murray's triumph at the Olympics.

Masters weren't as important as they were today when Hewitt was at #1. Sampras had 11 Masters titles and Hewitt came right after that era. Does that mean Murray is nearly as good as Sampras because he has nearly as many Masters titles? Hewitt also has 2 Masters Cup tournaments, Murray has 2 SF berths. Hewitt and Murray are dead equal.

Hewitt at his best would have beaten Djokovic at the US Open in 2012, and Wimbledon in 2013. He'd also have most likely beaten Federer at the AO in 2013 too (he was a sitting duck after his Tsonga match).

You are free to have your opinion but please don't try to change mine. I am not trolling, I am just expressing my opinion.

I believe you're trolling by comparing a player who has made a sole slam final to a player who has won 2 Grand Slams, 2 Masters Cups and has held the #1 ranking for an astounding 80 weeks. Ferrer would never achieve any of these things in any era, he just is not good enough. He is fodder.

No I started watching tennis in 1997.

So clearly you must know about Hewitt beating Sampras, Nadal and Federer on grass. What makes what Murray did any better?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

#1 Ranking depends on your competition. Would Hewitt be #1 even for a week if he had played alongside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? I am sure as hell the answer is NO.

He would have been #2 at some point at least. As good as Murray.

 

[Mainad]

#1 Ranking depends on your competition. Would Hewitt be #1 even for a week if he had played alongside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic? I am sure as hell the answer is NO.

But that's something we can never know for sure, can we? Peak Hewitt played in his own era and in his own era he became world #1. That's something Murray has yet to emulate and whether he has had to face tougher opposition or not, he plays in his own era just as Hewitt played in his. The record books will record Hewitt as having been the best player of his time. They have yet to show that for Murray.

That said, another Slam win for Murray would definitely put him ahead!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Well, Djokovic was still the world #1 player and Murray had to go through him. At 2002 Wimbledon, the highest seed Hewitt had to face was #4 Henman and he only had to face a rookie Nalbandian in the final who was seeded #28! There's no question that Murray's Wimbledon final at least was more impressive than Hewitt's!

Where Hewitt has the current advantage over Murray is his #1 ranking. That alone puts him slightly ahead of Murray at this point.

Sampras was impressive at the US Open in 2001. He beat 3 former champions back to back and then went on to be demolished by Hewitt in the final.

Nalbandian still made the final, it isn't Hewitt's fault. He played who was across the net from him and Nalbandian, even then, had a lot of potential. A year later he nearly beat Federer and Roddick back to back at the US Open in '03. Clearly he wasn't that weak, even though grass wasn't his best surface.

Hewitt also destroyed Henman in their SF. He had no chance whatsoever of beating him.

 

[Mainad]

Nalbandian still made the final, it isn't Hewitt's fault. He played who was across the net from him and Nalbandian, even then, had a lot of potential. A year later he nearly beat Federer and Roddick back to back at the US Open in '03. Clearly he wasn't that weak, even though grass wasn't his best surface.

I completely agree but earlier you said that Murray 'only had to go through Djokovic' and implied that this meant his Slam wins were somehow less impressive than Hewitt's! You can't use one argument to defend the level of Hewitt's opponent in his Wimbledon final and then at the same time try to dismiss Murray's far superior opponent! Of course it isn't Hewitt's fault who he had to play but facts remain facts. Nalbandian was still a rookie in 2002 whereas Djokovic was world #1 in 2013. There is no way Hewitt's Slam wins could be called more impressive than Murray's.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I completely agree but earlier you said that Murray 'only had to go through Djokovic' and implied that this meant his Slam wins were somehow less impressive than Hewitt's! You can't use one argument to defend the level of Hewitt's opponent in his Wimbledon final and then at the same time try to dismiss Murray's far superior opponent! Of course it isn't Hewitt's fault who he had to play but facts remain facts. Nalbandian was still a rookie in 2002 whereas Djokovic was world #1 in 2013. There is no way Hewitt's Slam wins could be called more impressive than Murray's.

I never said they were more impressive. I was just saying that I believe they are equal as players. If we took 2012-2013 Murray and put him into 2002 instead of Hewitt, he'd win the same Grand Slams Hewitt won as well.

I'm also a fan of both Hewitt and Murray. I like them both a lot and I believe they should both be greater than what they are. But like you have said, their other achievements level each other out and make it a level playing field.

The reverse is true for Ferrer, who is nowhere near as good as either Hewitt or Murray.

 

[Mainad]

I never said they were more impressive. I was just saying that I believe they are equal as players. If we took 2012-2013 Murray and put him into 2002 instead of Hewitt, he'd win the same Grand Slams Hewitt won as well.

I'm also a fan of both Hewitt and Murray. I like them both a lot and I believe they should both be greater than what they are. But like you have said, their other achievements level each other out and make it a level playing field.

The reverse is true for Ferrer, who is nowhere near as good as either Hewitt or Murray.

There can be no arguments about that!

 

[DerekNoleFam1]

Djokovic missed some great opportunities this year to add to his HC slam tally.

AO: Pretty much a guaranteed title if he got past Wawrinka. Berdych,his pigeon would have been next,followed by a completely sub par Nadal.

USO: He had no business losing to Nishikori IMO. The title was really his for the taking. He really was the no.1 favorite after he got past Murray,with no Nadal in his way and no Fed as well (who would have been spent anyway). He would have had his pigeon Cilic in the final, who let's be honest, wasn't going to beat Djokovic regardless of how well the Croatian played. This USO was probably his greatest abd most guaranteed opportunity to win a HC slam and another USO. And he blew it.

Not even a HC slam final this year is dissapointing for a player of Nole's caliber on HC. But maybe he will redeem himslef next year at the AO. Chasing the all time record of AO titles will definetely be his main goal. Passing Fed in AO titles would help his cause IMO in thes comparison.

This way Fed would be the leader in USO titles between them and Nole at AO.

I agree that USO Semi this year was even more of a wasted chance than his previous Final losses. Poor scheduling , ie playing in the middle and heat of the day did not help his case either.
In any event, can't say with that much confidence that he would have stopped Cilic, but he should have put himself in a position to do so.

 

[Tennisknowledge99]

Lol, the weak era make a big obsession for most forum folks here, sadly.

 

[derek08844]

Federer. No competition really.

 

[SpinToWin]

How is it possible that Novak is ahead of Roger on HC slams when Roger has 9 and Novak has 5.

Are you insane ? What the hell is wrong with your brain?

I love you man! :lol:

 

[Man of steel]

Fed....ultimate GOAT on HC. No question. Fed in his prime wasn't losing to players like Nishi at the age of 27 at the Us open

 

[NatF]

Novak isn't even in the same tier as Roger :lol:

 

[MichaelNadal]

Novak isn't even in the same tier as Roger :lol:

Reaching for greatness before we even knew what a Nole was

 

[NatF]

Reaching for greatness before we even knew what a Nole was

Their Shanghai match in 2006 was awesome.

 

[stringertom]

This is not true. Don't you know King Djokovic played in strongest Golden Era of Tennis competing with 2 ATGs and several other excellent players like Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, Ferrer, Berdych (All are victims of strong era, in any other era they would be ATGs, GS champions, #1s etc) while Federer thrived on weak competition like Agassi (ATG but not counts), mediocre talents like Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Djokovic, Murray?

GS won in Golden era must be given higher weight than won in mug 2004-10 era. Almost like 1 Golden GS= 2.2 Bronze GS! So that makes it all even or in fact gives slight edge to King Smashovic! :lol:


#ContradictionInWeakEraLogic
#CherryPickingInWeakEraLogic

When did weak era end? Perhaps when binge eating underachiever zero-slam-champion non-#1 ripped through several ATG's on his way to consecutive MS1000 titles in the fall of 2007???

 

[NatF]

At the age Djokovic was going out to Nishikori in the USO SF Federer was doing things like this;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xc1RCqidtTg

And a year later;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMJ0-1GGf5k

:lol:

 

[kandamrgam]

Hewitt's beaten Nadal, Federer and Sampras on grass. All in their primes. I'd say that's at least equal to Murray's triumph at the Olympics.

Masters weren't as important as they were today when Hewitt was at #1. Sampras had 11 Masters titles and Hewitt came right after that era. Does that mean Murray is nearly as good as Sampras because he has nearly as many Masters titles? Hewitt also has 2 Masters Cup tournaments, Murray has 2 SF berths. Hewitt and Murray are dead equal.

Hewitt at his best would have beaten Djokovic at the US Open in 2012, and Wimbledon in 2013. He'd also have most likely beaten Federer at the AO in 2013 too (he was a sitting duck after his Tsonga match).


I believe you're trolling by comparing a player who has made a sole slam final to a player who has won 2 Grand Slams, 2 Masters Cups and has held the #1 ranking for an astounding 80 weeks. Ferrer would never achieve any of these things in any era, he just is not good enough. He is fodder.


So clearly you must know about Hewitt beating Sampras, Nadal and Federer on grass. What makes what Murray did any better?

I dont think Lleyton beat a prime Rafa on grass. Latter was playing only his 4th tournament on grass, and had to retire mid way after winning a set. Something like that can be said for Sampras too.

All his wins against Sampras, Federer, Nadal came in non-Slams, but I wouldn't read too much into Nadal and Sampras results.

 

[kandamrgam]

Their Shanghai match in 2006 was awesome.

For Federer. Just completing the sentence

 

[syc23]

Fed v Nole on HC at their absolute peak?

Federer in straights 61 62 64. Fed in God mode then it would be 61 60 62.

Hell, Roger bagelled Nole in 2012 Cincy. That alone is proof that the Swiss trumps Djokovic on HC.

 

[kandamrgam]

I think Federer; this question probably has a relevance by the time Djokovic retires. Assuming he can win 3 more HC Slams.

Better q: http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=501080

 

[kandamrgam]

Fed v Nole on HC at their absolute peak?

Federer in straights 61 62 64. Fed in God mode then it would be 61 60 62.

Hell, Roger bagelled Nole in 2012 Cincy. That alone is proof that the Swiss trumps Djokovic on HC.

Not that I disagree but I hope you do realise this thread is about overall greatness.

 

[NatF]

For Federer. Just completing the sentence

Nadal was playing well too, you know he was

 

[mike danny]

Fed is better grass player (however not by much as we saw in this year's W final), but Novak is better HC player and will confirm that before everything is said and done.

Even now their HC slam H2H is 4-3 for Novak (2-0 AO, 2-3 USO) since Novak matured and made it to the top 10.

What??? Beating an almost 33 year old Fed 5 years past his W prime is evidence of anything? And Djokovic barely won that match.

Federer is miles ahead of Djokovic on grass. MILES!!!

As for HC, Fed is miles ahead at the USO. Djokovic was really fortunate to win those USO matche that he won

 

[syc23]

Not that I disagree but I hope you do realise this thread is about overall greatness.

I am talking about the overall greatness of both players.

Federer moved like a panther in 2004-2006 and was scary how easy he had put players away. Let's put peak Nole 2011 v peak Fed of '04-'06 vintage, on fast Decoturf, Roger's offense would have no problems getting through djokovic's defences.

Plexicushion and on slower HC would be pretty much the same. Just look at the way Roger dismantled Hewitt back in the day, there was no contest.

 

[kandamrgam]

Nadal was playing well too, you know he was

Tbh I never thought Nadal played badly in those matches he lost early to Blake, or his losses to Federer at Wimbly, TMC in 2006, 2007, his loss to Tsonga in 2008 - few I can remember now. Of course Nadal is a great player, he is a consistent player.

My only issue is that all those matches were great for clay courts. It never was a game that was going to win him non-Clay majors. Imo his level was good, but his approach wasn't. I hope you get the distinction. Feels unfair to use such matches to measure his greatness on non-clay.

 

[The_Order]

Federer is slightly ahead because he was more efficient in GS. He probably has the most efficient game in the history of tennis and he is the ultimate minnow-basher. He hardly lost to players against whom he was supposed to win at his prime. Djokovic OTOH has lost to players like Nishikori when he had no business of not winning this year's US open. That's what makes Federer slightly better IMO. But Federer's incredible dominance in those 3-4 years was partly due to lack of world class players on surfaces other than clay and partly due to his own efficiency and brilliance.

Get ready to be attacked by the Hewitt and Roddick fans, also known as the Federer fans...

 

[Chico]

Fed v Nole on HC at their absolute peak?

Federer in straights 61 62 64. Fed in God mode then it would be 61 60 62.

Hell, Roger bagelled Nole in 2012 Cincy. That alone is proof that the Swiss trumps Djokovic on HC.

Utter nonsense. Typical underrating of Novak. If this has a grain of truth, than Novak would not be leading their overall H2H (17-15) and slam H2H (6-5) counting from the moment he matured and made it to the top 10 (April 2017).

Also young baby barely 20 yo Novak would not be beating peak Fed at Masters (Montreal 2007) and Slams (AO 2008) and would not be having multiple set points in his very first Slam final on USO 2007 - Baby Novak was better player than peak Fed in the first two sets but choked 7 set points due to being overwhelmed by the occasion.

 

[kandamrgam]

I am talking about the overall greatness of both players.

Federer moved like a panther in 2004-2006 and was scary how easy he had put players away. Let's put peak Nole 2011 v peak Fed of '04-'06 vintage, on fast Decoturf, Roger's offense would have no problems getting through djokovic's defences.

Plexicushion and on slower HC would be pretty much the same. Just look at the way Roger dismantled Hewitt back in the day, there was no contest.

Ya ok get you. Assuming Federer faces Djokovic in HC Slam finals which is fair.

Btw, which panther? Being an animal lover I would like to know. Or you mean any of panthera genus generally?

 

[mike danny]

Federer played some of the weakest competition to win his GS titles on HCs.

US open:

2004- Hewitt (mediocre talent)
2005- 35 years old Agassi (after 4 back to back 5 setters and no break between semi and final)
2006- Roddick (another mediocre talent)
2007- Djokovic (20 years old first time finalist, failed to close out two sets due to lack of experience)
2008- Murray ( 21 years old first time finalist)

Aus Open:

2004- Safin (good player)
2006- Baghdatis (one time wonder lol)
2007- Gonzalez (another one time wonder lol)
2010- Good player but mentally was not prepared for GS final.

Djokovic on the other hand has had to play much tougher players. He has lost to Nadal twice at the US open final and peak Federer and Murray one each. This should be taken into consideration. Had peak Djokovic played the players Federer got to play, he would have also won most of those finals.

Overall I think both of them are great, Federer is slightly ahead. Federer is better at the open but still Federer's weak competition makes his GS tally larger.

So Hewitt a USO champion and Roddick a USO champion as well are mediocre players? They were also no.1 at some point. It doesn't matter what era they played in. They are part of the only 25 people in history who have ever been world no.1. And certainly better no.1's than guys like Rafter and Muster.

These 2 also gave Fed some tough matches. Hewitt at USO 2005 and Roddick at USO 2007.

As for Djokovic at USO 2007, if Federer post 2010 counts, then so does Djokovic in 2007. He was the no.3 player in the world and just beat Fed in a big final at Montreal. He wasn't an easy opponent.

Murray was also in top form at USO 2008. Beat Nadal in the semis after all.

Hewitt in 2004 didn't drop a single set before the USO final. He was pretty much in top form.

These guys weren't mugs. Nobody who reaches multiple USO finals like Hewitt,Roddick are mugs and nobody who was no.3 in the world (Djokovic) or beat the no.1 player in the semis (Murray) are mugs.

Federer never lost to Murray in slam finals. Never. This shouldn't be held against him. Djokovic also faced a slamless Murray in USO 2012. And he lost. Why say that only Fed faced this version of Murray? The fact is when Fed faced Murray in a slam final he always won. When Djokovic did, he didn't always win, as evidenced by USO 2012, when Muray was still slamless.

Face it, Murray is a very good player. But he wouldn't beat Fed in a slam final. Or has very little chance of doing so. Fed would actually prefer facing Murray than Djokovic or Nadal.

 

[Chico]

Ya ok get you. Assuming Federer faces Djokovic in HC Slam finals which is fair.

Btw, which panther? Being an animal lover I would like to know. Or you mean panthera genus?

The Pink Panther

 

[Surecatch]

Federer obviously.

 

[kandamrgam]

The Pink Panther

Hahaha..

 

[The_Order]

So Hewitt a USO champion and Roddick a USO champion as well are mediocre players? They were also no.1 at some point. It doesn't matter what era they played in. They are part of the only 25 people in history who have ever been world no.1. And certainly better no.1's than guys like Rafter and Muster.

Now this is what gets me. How can it not matter what era they played in?

If Hewitt and Roddick had to contend with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all in their primes would they be ranked#1? No way, they wouldn't even reach #3 until Nadal takes 6 months off because of injury.

They would not have that achievement if they arrived the same time as Murray. It's narrow minded logic to say it doesn't matter when it CLEARLY does.

These 2 also gave Fed some tough matches. Hewitt at USO 2005 and Roddick at USO 2007.

No, Roddick gave Federer a much tougher match at WIM04 than USO07 where he put on a disappearing act in the third set.

But so what? They gave him tough matches, but they never got close to beating him. They couldn't even take 2 sets off him in any slam meeting from 04-07. So a bunch of touch 4 setters? Nope, more often than not Fed was toying with them. Roddick AO07, WIM05. Hewitt USO04, WIM04, even AO04 after the first set.

Hewitt gave Fed ONE tough match at a slam and that was USO05 SF. Roddick also only gave a couple, WIM04 & USO07.

As for Djokovic at USO 2007, if Federer post 2010 counts, then so does Djokovic in 2007. He was the no.3 player in the world and just beat Fed in a big final at Montreal. He wasn't an easy opponent.

Federer post 2010 doesn't have first time slam final nerves like Novak CLEARLY did in that 07 final. He should've won both of the first 2 sets and choked. In 2013 final, when Novak should've won the third set, Nadal stepped up his game and outright stopped him. There's the difference between difficulty of Novak 2007 vs Novak 2013. In 07 he beat himself, in 2013 it took some brilliance from Nadal to escape out of trouble and turn the match.

Murray was also in top form at USO 2008. Beat Nadal in the semis after all.

Hewitt in 2004 didn't drop a single set before the USO final. He was pretty much in top form.

Oh give me a break, they both played like horse turds in those US Open finals. Hewitt played right into Fed's hands and Muzza was clearly not up to the occasion.

These guys weren't mugs. Nobody who reaches multiple USO finals like Hewitt,Roddick are mugs and nobody who was no.3 in the world (Djokovic) or beat the no.1 player in the semis (Murray) are mugs.

No they weren't mugs, but they were clearly not the same caliber as prime Novak, Nadal and Murray.

Federer never lost to Murray in slam finals. Never. This shouldn't be held against him. Djokovic also faced a slamless Murray in USO 2012. And he lost. Why say that only Fed faced this version of Murray? The fact is when Fed faced Murray in a slam final he always won. When Djokovic did, he didn't always win, as evidenced by USO 2012, when Muray was still slamless.

Face it, Murray is a very good player. But he wouldn't beat Fed in a slam final. Or has very little chance of doing so. Fed would actually prefer facing Murray than Djokovic or Nadal.

Murray is on a similar level to Hewitt, only more consistent.

Novak and Nadal make the big difference here. Hewitt was Fed's strongest competition, yet he is about the level of Murray. There was no prime Novak and Nadal to deal with at the majors apart from RG. Only WIM07 was one time and Nadal was screwed by scheduling while Fed benefited from it plus a walk over from his buddy Haas.

Roddick, old Agassi, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are not of the same class as prime Nadal and Novak.

 

[NatF]

Tbh I never thought Nadal played badly in those matches he lost early to Blake, or his losses to Federer at Wimbly, TMC in 2006, 2007, his loss to Tsonga in 2008 - few I can remember now. Of course Nadal is a great player, he is a consistent player.

My only issue is that all those matches were great for clay courts. It never was a game that was going to win him non-Clay majors. Imo his level was good, but his approach wasn't. I hope you get the distinction. Feels unfair to use such matches to measure his greatness on non-clay.

I think you overestimate the change in Nadal's game style. Generally speaking he stills stands behind the baseline hitting heavy topspin balls to the opponents backhand. Several elements have improved, most notably his serve and volleys IMO. But he still wins matches the same way.

Runs like USO 10/13 are more exceptions than the norm.

 

[The_Order]

I think you overestimate the change in Nadal's game style. Generally speaking he stills stands behind the baseline hitting heavy topspin balls to the opponents backhand. Several elements have improved, most notably his serve and volleys IMO. But he still wins matches the same way.

Runs like USO 10/13 are more exceptions than the norm.

Every time he reached the Wimbledon final, he stepped up to the baseline.

 

[mike danny]

Now this is what gets me. How can it not matter what era they played in?

If Hewitt and Roddick had to contend with Federer, Nadal and Djokovic all in their primes would they be ranked#1? No way, they wouldn't even reach #3 until Nadal takes 6 months off because of injury.

They would not have that achievement if they arrived the same time as Murray. It's narrow minded logic to say it doesn't matter when it CLEARLY does.



No, Roddick gave Federer a much tougher match at WIM04 than USO07 where he put on a disappearing act in the third set.

But so what? They gave him tough matches, but they never got close to beating him. They couldn't even take 2 sets off him in any slam meeting from 04-07. So a bunch of touch 4 setters? Nope, more often than not Fed was toying with them. Roddick AO07, WIM05. Hewitt USO04, WIM04, even AO04 after the first set.

Hewitt gave Fed ONE tough match at a slam and that was USO05 SF. Roddick also only gave a couple, WIM04 & USO07.



Federer post 2010 doesn't have first time slam final nerves like Novak CLEARLY did in that 07 final. He should've won both of the first 2 sets and choked. In 2013 final, when Novak should've won the third set, Nadal stepped up his game and outright stopped him. There's the difference between difficulty of Novak 2007 vs Novak 2013. In 07 he beat himself, in 2013 it took some brilliance from Nadal to escape out of trouble and turn the match.



Oh give me a break, they both played like horse turds in those US Open finals. Hewitt played right into Fed's hands and Muzza was clearly not up to the occasion.



No they weren't mugs, but they were clearly not the same caliber as prime Novak, Nadal and Murray.



Murray is on a similar level to Hewitt, only more consistent.

Novak and Nadal make the big difference here. Hewitt was Fed's strongest competition, yet he is about the level of Murray. There was no prime Novak and Nadal to deal with at the majors apart from RG. Only WIM07 was one time and Nadal was screwed by scheduling while Fed benefited from it plus a walk over from his buddy Haas.

Roddick, old Agassi, Gonzalez, Baghdatis are not of the same class as prime Nadal and Novak.

First of all, don't put Roddick in the same class as Gonzalez and Bghdatis. He is at least a tier above them. He is in the same class as Hewitt.

Second of all, don't talk as if Federer wins when the opponent beats himself and Nadal always escapes brilliantly. That's nonsense. Djokovic beat himself in the USO 2013 final. First and 4th sets say hello.

Yes Nadal did a good job in winning the 3rd set, but that doesn't explain why Novak completely went away in the 4th. In the 2007 final in contrast Djokovic didn't go away after losing set points in the first. He also didn't go away after losing other set points in the 2nd. He stayed with Fed to the very end of each set. Not the same with USO 2013 final.

 

[syc23]

The Pink Panther

LOL. Any color - you see one you can't even outrun or outjump it!! The only thing quicker would be Mirka running to the shop to collect the pizzas!

 

[Man of steel]

The fact that fed is still able to compete at the highest level at the age of 33 and is at number 2 just adds more to his GOAT claim. We all expected djoko to win pretty much every slam (except the FO) after 2011 season. But he hasn't. He's been stopped by a 30+year old fed, nadal, murray and even lesser players. So the longer fed continues to play at a high level the more he dispproves the theory of weak era. He handed djokovic a loss a couple weeks ago and djoko is supposed to be in his prime. You can't tell me this era is any better than 04-07 where you have roanic, nishi, cilic, wawrinka. Even murray was terrible this year. And still djoko can't get another multislam season.

 

[Anti-Fedal]

Djokovic needs some more USO's to be in the conversation.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The fact that fed is still able to compete at the highest level at the age of 33 and is at number 2 just adds more to his GOAT claim. We all expected djoko to win pretty much every slam (except the FO) after 2011 season. But he hasn't. He's been stopped by a 30+year old fed, nadal, murray and even lesser players. So the longer fed continues to play at a high level the more he dispproves the theory of weak era. He handed djokovic a loss a couple weeks ago and djoko is supposed to be in his prime. You can't tell me this era is any better than 04-07 where you have roanic, nishi, cilic, wawrinka. Even murray was terrible this year. And still djoko can't get another multislam season.

Not sure why Federer's age gets brought up so much on these boards. Unless you're constantly comparing him to the 04-07 version?

And don't worry about Novak not getting another multi-slam season - he's already one of the all time greats of the sport regardless.

 

[beast of mallorca]

It's stuf like this that fans post, that makes people like the actual player less:lol:

I have to say that there is some truth to this. I like Djoker but that poster is quite annoying, I might start to root against Nole's opponent.

 

[Djokovic2011]

I have to say that there is some truth to this. I like Djoker but that poster is quite annoying, I might start to root against Nole's opponent.

I know how you feel beastie. Serena's my favourite female player but there's a couple of posters on this forum that make me really hope she doesn't get to 19.

 

[beast of mallorca]

I know how you feel beastie. Serena's my favourite female player but there's a couple of posters on this forum that make me really hope she doesn't get to 19.

You knOw that I've always been a fan and as such part of the brethren ( here's missing my good buddy FreeBird and Bob). Hope you understand my sentiments. Haha....maybe I'll just not visit TW when Djoker is playing, so i will not remember the poster

 

[kandamrgam]

I think you overestimate the change in Nadal's game style. Generally speaking he stills stands behind the baseline hitting heavy topspin balls to the opponents backhand. Several elements have improved, most notably his serve and volleys IMO. But he still wins matches the same way.

Runs like USO 10/13 are more exceptions than the norm.

Being an avid fan I can see his changes. He has of course turned more offensive to put it broadly. Offense is what disrupts the rhythm of opponents who are mostly much more attacking than Nadal generally. His serve, his FH, his BH all improved. And most importantly court positioning. Not the moving higher kinda, but the way he anticipates the ball. I recently watched an extended highlight of Fed-Nadal Wimbly 06 and that was what struck me the most.

I dont read much into his UO Series of 10 and 13, I know that was extreme steps he took to win those.

But I dont know what am I "overestimating" here. I estimating as much as his improvement exactly shown. Leave out Federer, what otherwise has really enabled Nadal to take revenge on players like Youzhnys Berdychs and Tsongas? Their level going down? Nadal did mature as a non-clay player to a degree which I estimate as objectively as possible. Flatter BH & FH means he is giving the opponent less rhythm.

 

[Mustard]

So Hewitt a USO champion and Roddick a USO champion as well are mediocre players? They were also no.1 at some point. It doesn't matter what era they played in. They are part of the only 25 people in history who have ever been world no.1. And certainly better no.1's than guys like Rafter and Muster.

When Muster was world number 1, he had been dominating tennis on clay, more than Roddick ever managed on hardcourt (including North American 2003 summer), that's for sure. Muster also wouldn't have become world number 1 if he hadn't had won the 1995 Essen Indoor Masters event, during which he beat Sampras.

 

[mike danny]

When Muster was world number 1, he had been dominating tennis on clay, more than Roddick ever managed on hardcourt (including North American 2003 summer), that's for sure. Muster also wouldn't have become world number 1 if he hadn't had won the 1995 Essen Indoor Masters event, during which he beat Sampras.

I know you are a Muster fan. But leaving only HC aside, Roddick reaching multiple finals on both grass slams and HC slams automatically makes him a better no.1 than Muster.

The point is nobody who reached multiple USO finals winning 1 of them is mediocre competition. And certainly nobody who is no.3 in the world like Novak 2007 is mediocre competition. Or Murray who defeated the no.1 Nadal in the semis in 2008.

Djokovic reaching the USO final wasn't a surprise at all judging by his results in 2007. Multiple masters winner and reaching the semis of the previous 2 slams. Reaching a slam final was to be expected at that point. And it happened immediately at the following slam after W 2007.

No. 3 in the world, semis at the previous 2 slams,multiple masters winner and beating Fed in the previous big final they played => Djokovic was worthy competition in 2007 and the way he pushed Fed in the final cements it.

As opposed to today, Fed had to deal with very capable and great young players in his prime, as opposed to Djokovic and Nadal this year, who still can't dominate, despite the lack of really great young players. This makes Fed's wins even more impressive, as he managed to fend off every new challenger on HC.

 

[kandamrgam]

I know you are a Muster fan. But leaving only HC aside, Roddick reaching multiple finals on both grass slams and HC slams automatically makes him a better no.1 than Muster.

The point is nobody who reached multiple USO finals winning 1 of them is mediocre competition. And certainly nobody who is no.3 in the world like Novak 2007 is mediocre competition. Or Murray who defeated the no.1 Nadal in the semis in 2008.

Djokovic reaching the USO final wasn't a surprise at all judging by his results in 2007. Multiple masters winner and reaching the semis of the previous 2 slams. Reaching a slam final was to be expected at that point. And it happened immediately at the following slam after W 2007.

No. 3 in the world, semis at the previous 2 slams,multiple masters winner and beating Fed in the previous big final they played => Djokovic was worthy competition in 2007 and the way he pushed Fed in the final cements it.

As opposed to today, Fed had to deal with very capable and great young players in his prime, as opposed to Djokovic and Nadal this year, who still can't dominate, despite the lack of really great young players. This makes Fed's wins even more impressive, as he managed to fend off every new challenger on HC.

1. Definitely agree with u that a slam winner + former no.1 + multiple finalist is never a weak player. But there is nothing that stops him from being weaker opponent compared to another finalist a winner had to endure. Not pointing at any particular individual, just saying.

2. But I don't get one thing. Fed dominated young players back then in which years? I think you meant 2007-2010. I think Slam h2h of Fed-Djoker is 4-2 in that period. From 08-10 it is 2-2. And forget Nadal. I think there is a clear domination of only 3rd best player Murray.

Which young player isn't dominated by Rafole today?

 

[Mustard]

I know you are a Muster fan. But leaving only HC aside, Roddick reaching multiple finals on both grass slams and HC slams automatically makes him a better no.1 than Muster.

When Roddick was world number 1, he hadn't reached a Wimbledon final. Look at Roddick's 12 months prior to November 2003, and compare it to Muster's 12 months prior to February 1996.

Muster
Reigning champion at French Open, Italian Open, Monte Carlo, Essen Indoors, Stuttgart Outdoor, Barcelona, Mexico City, Estoril, St. Poelten, San Marino, Umag and Bucharest.

Roddick
Reigning champion at US Open, Canadian Open, Cincinnati, Queen's Club, Indianapolis and St. Poelten.

 

[mike danny]

1. Definitely agree with u that a slam winner + former no.1 + multiple finalist is never a weak player. But there is nothing that stops him from being weaker opponent compared to another finalist a winner had to endure. Not pointing at any particular individual, just saying.

2. But I don't get one thing. Fed dominated young players back then in which years? I think you meant 2007-2010. I think Slam h2h of Fed-Djoker is 4-2 in that period. From 08-10 it is 2-2. And forget Nadal. I think there is a clear domination of only 3rd best player Murray.

Which young player isn't dominated by Rafole today?

I am talkng about young players who are capable of reaching slam finals. Nobody today is able to do that, so Federer had stronger young players to deal with