Man, that one was a W for the ages!

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Sock isn't the only fluke win. It's the home of flukes. Henman, Berdych, Ferrer, Khachanov etc.
Henman beat Federer and Roddick, the two most recent Slam champs? Fluke? Not his problem they weren't good enough to beat him. Ferrer won the tournament when Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka were in the draw. Also, not a fluke. Khachanov beat Zverev, Thiem and Djokovic and also earned his title.
 

TheGhostOfAgassi

Talk Tennis Guru
Come on man, even the most ardent Federer fan should not be claiming that Basel is a tougher tournament to win than the Paris masters. There's no comparison, unless you just want to be silly and stir things up around here. I don't know why folks are even debating this.
I think I know why they try to make as if Basel is a huge tournament :p Not that difficult to understand the RF “logic.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Henman beat Federer and Roddick, the two most recent Slam champs? Fluke? Not his problem they weren't good enough to beat him. Ferrer won the tournament when Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka were in the draw. Also, not a fluke. Khachanov beat Zverev, Thiem and Djokovic and also earned his title.
Everyone "earned" the title that they got. So, there are no "flukes" by that logic.

:cool:
 

PeoplesChamp

Professional
Henman beat Federer and Roddick, the two most recent Slam champs? Fluke? Not his problem they weren't good enough to beat him. Ferrer won the tournament when Djokovic, Murray, Del Potro and Wawrinka were in the draw. Also, not a fluke. Khachanov beat Zverev, Thiem and Djokovic and also earned his title.
I'll give you Khachanov since he is still young and may win more. I'll also give it to you for admitting that Djokovic was good competition instead of sick since he had such a close match with Federer ;). However, the other 3 are retired and they all have one thing in common and that's owning one career Masters title. All Paris. Coincidence? I think not.
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
I have no problems with Federer fans celebrating this win over Djokovic. This match, while not remotely as important as the Wimbledon final, does count as it gives Federer a psychological advantage heading into next year. It will give him confidence and more self-belief against Djokovic. But it cannot replace the Wimbledon final. It's just silly to make any such claims.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I'll give you Khachanov since he is still young and may win more. I'll also give it to you for admitting that Djokovic was good competition instead of sick since he had such a close match with Federer ;). However, the other 3 are retired and they all have one thing in common and that's owning one career Masters title. All Paris. Coincidence? I think not.
You can't claim Henman's title is a fluke if he beat Federer and Roddick, both top 3 at the time. It's well earned win. Plus Henman won his first 6 out of 7 matches against Federer. Calling it a fluke is a serious stretch.
 

PeoplesChamp

Professional
You can't claim Henman's title is a fluke if he beat Federer and Roddick, both top 3 at the time. It's well earned win. Plus Henman won his first 6 out of 7 matches against Federer. Calling it a fluke is a serious stretch.
I wouldn't say that either player was playing their best tennis at the time. Both had sketchy play after good summers. Also, Federer was trying to do too much playing Vienna, Madrid, Basel, and Paris back to back.
 
Last edited:

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
So many wanted Federer to roll over and die. He refused to do so and many are disappointed that he didn't :cry:
I remember reading from Djokovic fans that Federer "has no chance" and even argued that that is so since he hasn't beaten Novak "in years". What a disappointment that the old man can still spank his younger colleague in style.

8-B
 

PeoplesChamp

Professional
I remember reading from Djokovic fans that Federer "has no chance" and even argued that that is so since he hasn't beaten Novak "in years". What a disappointment that the old man can still spank his younger colleague in style.

8-B
Djoker knew it was coming. His fans never do. Delicious happenings :whistle:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
Come on man, even the most ardent Federer fan should not be claiming that Basel is a tougher tournament to win than the Paris masters. There's no comparison, unless you just want to be silly and stir things up around here. I don't know why folks are even debating this.
You have to look at who they played there too. Paris has usually always been the weakest masters.

10 Basel + 1 paris > 5 Paris + 1 Basel imo considering the opponents they beat there.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Federer got thrashed by Nadal in Paris and lost to a dreadful Djokovic in Wimbledon then watched both lifting the trophy.

Meanwhile Federer beat both elsewhere but had no trophy to show for it. Most would prefer being in Nadal and Djokovic shoes.

If however its all about h2h then Nadal 24-16 Federer, Djokovic 26-24 Federer (i think).
Since you are new I always recommend that you check out your brethren for the same arguments as every "new user/rookie" starts with the same stupid and beaten to death arguments and ends up being "banned" or certified "troll of famer".

:cool:
 

Sunny Ali

Hall of Fame
You have to look at who they played there too. Paris has usually always been the weakest masters.

10 Basel + 1 paris > 5 Paris + 1 Basel imo considering the opponents they beat there.
King ... if you're emphasizing the quality of opposition over the magnitude of the tournament, I agree you have to look at the players they beat. I see that @NoleFam has addressed that already.
 

Tennis_Hands

Bionic Poster
Think you will find my post is factual as opposed to an argument. As for your comment regarding bannings i have no idea what you are talking about as i am new but seems to me if those who lose a debate then want people banned then they are admitting defeat in whatever alleged arguments take place. I have yet to see any animosity on here bar your post so as i say i am not entirely sure of your point.
Read my post again.

:cool:
 

KINGROGER

G.O.A.T.
I dont get this Old Fed argument. When he was the age of Nadal and Djokovic he was nowhere near as dominant as they are. 5 years ago if i recall Federer had gone 2 and a half years without a Major.
Probably because he had to play prime Djokovic and Nadal rather than lost gen, mug gen, iPhone gen.
 

MoralTruth

New User
Why? Djokovic is 19-6 against Wawrinka. Both Federer and Murray have closer head to heads than that.
Murray has not beaten Djokovic in a slam since 2013 he lost all meetings from 2014-early 16 and his peak level went down after early 2013. Wawrinka was way more of a threat in slam matches. Federer yes though.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Murray has not beaten Djokovic in a slam since 2013 he lost all meetings from 2014-early 16 and his peak level went down after early 2013. Wawrinka was way more of a threat in slam matches. Federer yes though.
Murray also has beaten Djokovic multiple times in Masters and the WTF final, which you left out. Wawrinka never has.
 

MoralTruth

New User
Murray also has beaten Djokovic multiple times in Masters and the WTF final, which you left out. Wawrinka never has.
Most of those came from 2008-2013 when Murray brought it to Novak he was tougher then. Thinking of the 14-mid 16 period things were different then.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Most of those came from 2008-2013 when Murray brought it to Novak he was tougher then. Thinking of the 14-mid 16 period things were different then.
The WTF final was in 2016, Rome final was in 2016, and Canada final was in 2015. Wawrinka has none of those titles and never beat Djokovic in any of those tournaments.
 

MoralTruth

New User
The WTF final was in 2016, Rome final was in 2016, and Canada final was in 2015. Wawrinka has none of those titles and never beat Djokovic in any of those tournaments.
Djokovic was off in Rome after the Nadal/Nishi matches
WTF is when he was slumping
Montreal 2015 was a good win
Murray is better than Wawrinka overall but Wawrinka was more threatening in that period in big slam matches.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
I'm willing to rate the guy who denied Djokovic 3 slams higher than the guys who didn't.
Stopping Djokovic from winning 2 Slams, 1 WTF title, 1 Olympic title and 5 Masters titles is greater than stopping Djokovic from winning 3 Slams. I don't see how you can think otherwise.
 

NoleFam

G.O.A.T.
Djokovic was off in Rome after the Nadal/Nishi matches
WTF is when he was slumping
Montreal 2015 was a good win
Murray is better than Wawrinka overall but Wawrinka was more threatening in that period in big slam matches.
Djokovic was a bit tired after those matches but still credit to Murray for beating him. Djokovic was also injured at that USO that year so even though he may have been slumping at least he wasn't calling for the trainer in every match like he was there. I'll give Wawrinka that for being tougher in Slam matches during that time but it was mainly a one off every year where Murray was there in every big tournament.
 
Top