Djokovic2011
Bionic Poster
When Djokovic is at a tournament and playing on court, his FULL focus is on the match.
You'd like to think so but one can never know that for sure.
When Djokovic is at a tournament and playing on court, his FULL focus is on the match.
In 2013 Nadal was same age as Fed was in 2008. So lets say Fed was a weirdo like Nadal and decided to stop playing at the start of 2008 for 7 months and then came back and won 2008 USO, reached final of 2009 AO, won 2009 FO and 2009 Wimbledon and reached final of 2009 USO and got his number #1 rank back. Wait it did happen minus the not playing for 7 months because he is not a weirdo.
OK, then we can say that Fed had a weak year in 2009 because his first set of twins were born. He got married and had his first TWO children. So lets assume he would have won another slam otherwise, would have played better for the year. Maybe he should have won three slams.No, it would be a terrible thing. Undeserved, slamless, weak and shallow YE #1, achieved mostly due to sheer luck, cakewalk draws and Novak being distracted due to his firstborn child. is something that Federer and Federer fans should never be proud of and brag about.
When I'm at work, teaching, I TRY to keep my FULL focus on what I'm doing. Separating personal matters from work issues is a worthy goal.When Djokovic is at a tournament and playing on court, his FULL focus is on the match.
Muster's is the greatest, and it's not close.
Roger came back from a disastrous 8th in the world. That's not a comeback, that's an off year with plenty of points to make the next.
Andre came back from drug problems, getting fat, and getting lazy. That's not a comeback...that's maturing.
Muster got his leg shredded out of nowhere...wasn't supposed to play again. Got to the top of the ladder.
THAT'S a comeback
One of the rare cases where I actually agree with you.
In terms of titles won, Novak has definitely done better.
It is just that for YE #1 that doesn't matter as much.
Strictly going by the grand-slam results, none deserve the YE1 award. Not Fed (at all), not Nole, and not Nadal. I wish there was a contender called "Nobody wins"![]()
Strictly going by the grand-slam results, none deserve the YE1 award. Not Fed (at all), not Nole, and not Nadal. I wish there was a contender called "Nobody wins"![]()
It would be ironic if Fed ends up as a slamless #1 this year. It would only highlight the fact that yet again he hasn't won a slam all season. This would be the 7th year Fed would have failed to win a slam.
Surely the King of Slams has to be Nadal who has won at least one slam every year since 2005.
Nadal's comeback IMO is more impressive considering how devastating his injuries were. If Fed gets back to number 1, and wins Wimbledon, I think it would add to his legendary career no doubt
Interesting and fair point.
And while Nadal is impressive as a modern player, if he were to play Borg, Lendl, Wilander or Vilas ( let alone Connors, Nastase or even McEnroe ) without a string to keep the ball in for him or equipment that required far more skill than endurance, I suspect he wouldn't be nearly as successful. He would be in the mix with those players, but he wouldn't have as many wins.
Don't get me wrong, Nadal is a fantastic player and a seemingly a nice person; a credit to the sport. And really you can't fault the guy for being a product of his time. The situation allows Nadal to be successful, which is great. It's part of the game.
But if you took McEnroe and transported him to the 1920's and made him play against players then with an old wood bat with no grip on the wood of the handle and cat gut strings that you were never really sure what they were strung at, McEnroe would still excel. So would Sampras, Federer, Lendl and other greats.
But without Nadal's inherent advantages that he enjoys today, similar success might not be likely. He gets to be great in his time, maybe not-so-much in others.
I played in college twenty years ago. Last summer I played three kids who played in college within the last four years, all of them with big Bab-eee rackets. Physically I couldn't keep up. It's just a different game. I played them tight for a bit but would usually go down 3, 4 or on a good day 7-5.
I later played them all with wood rackets. I played serve and volley with one, all-court with another and touch with the last.
They didn't have the racket skills, the technique or the strategy to just run me over. We played virtually even with me the most likely winner. Keep in mind, I'm also twenty years older.
Now I'm no pro-player. No where near it. But with a 3 to 1 experiment, it was an interesting discussion about the product of the time. And maybe this is a small bit of insight to the modern game itself.
So is Nadal really the king? Or with his primary competitor to legacy being five years older, is he just king of today's game?