No under 30 player other than Thiem has reached more than 5 QFs in slams!

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Last. A paltry 2 QFs from Fedboy's first 15 slams. Worse than Rublev, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev. There are a lot of stones being thrown around these glass houses.

And I am still waiting for anyone to name a worse World No. 3 in history than 2006's Ivan Ljubicic. 2 QFs or better in 48 miserable slam attempts.

A player with 31 slam losses in 1st or 2nd round, out of a total of 48 attempts could climb to No. 3 in 2006?? And people think this era is weak?? :-D

Wanna talk about Rios & Kafelnikov getting to #1 during an era when a real goat was keeping his opponents at bay?
This is of course without bringing Agassi into this discussion
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
Wanna talk about Rios & Kafelnikov getting to #1 during an era when a real goat was keeping his opponents at bay?
This is of course without bringing Agassi into this discussion

Kafelnikov? Winner of 2 slams on 2 different surfaces? 13 QF or better results in the slams. You don't think that is World No. 1 material?
On topic, Kafelnikov achieved 6QF or better, including a SF and Win, in his first 15 slam attempts, considerably better than Federer's two.

Rios? The best player never to win a slam. Rios was an utter genius in my opinion and was a very worthy No. 1.
On topic, Rios achieved 4 QF or better in his first 15 slams, considerably better than Federer's two.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Last. A paltry 2 QFs from Fedboy's first 15 slams. Worse than Rublev, Zverev, Tsitsipas and Medvedev. There are a lot of stones being thrown around these glass houses.

And I am still waiting for anyone to name a worse World No. 3 in history than 2006's Ivan Ljubicic. 2 QFs or better in 48 miserable slam attempts.

A player with 31 slam losses in 1st or 2nd round, out of a total of 48 attempts could climb to No. 3 in 2006?? And people think this era is weak?? :-D
Zverev, who reached no.3 in 2017 without a single slam QF.

You didn't even know that Ljubicic won IW in 2010 beating your boy, yet you still make fun of him :-D

Your first paragraph is a nice way of hiding the fact that by Tsitsipas's age, Fed was a slam winner and by Zverev and Medvedev's ages he was a dominant force in tennis. But hate away :-D

And yes, this is a weak era. One in which Kevin Anderson reached 2 major finals :-D
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Kafelnikov? Winner of 2 slams on 2 different surfaces? 13 QF or better results in the slams. You don't think that is World No. 1 material?
On topic, Kafelnikov achieved 6QF or better, including a SF and Win, in his first 15 slam attempts, considerably better than Federer's two.

tell me please why Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Kuerten are weak era mugs / vaccuum era if Kafelnikov is "World No. 1 material"?

P.S.
can you tell me what was his winning streak after he got to #1?
or what was his H2H vs Sampras?
or what was his H2H vs Becker?
so that we can all appreciate the "World No. 1 material"

Rios? The best player never to win a slam. Rios was an utter genius in my opinion and was a very worthy No. 1.
On topic, Rios achieved 4 QF or better in his first 15 slams, considerably better than Federer's two.

ok pal.
Now let's compare again how Rios is a glorious world #1
please use criteria that would clearly show to everyone that Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Ferrero, Kuerten were just some weak era mugs / vaccuum era waiting for Djokodal to come and save the world
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
And I am still waiting for anyone to name a worse World No. 3 in history than 2006's Ivan Ljubicic. 2 QFs or better in 48 miserable slam attempts.

How about we compare these 2 paths:
1. a player that reached ATP #1?
RG = lost in R16
Wimbledon = lost in R16
USO = lost in QF
AO = finalist

Ljubicic reaching #3 his results were:
Metz = winner
Vienna = winner
Madrid Masters = finalist
Paris Masters = finalist
Chennai = winner
AO = QF
Zagreb = winner
IW = QF
Miami = finalist
MC = QF

these results are quite in line with the #1 player' results mentioned above, don't you think so?
 

Thriller

Hall of Fame
Hey, Blabby, you are the one who introduced the "you can judge a player by how well they do in their first 15 slams" nonsense metric in post #39. Don't complain when it backfires and shows that Federer failed this test much harder than every single player you are trying to label as weak.

How about we compare these 2 paths:
1. a player that reached ATP #1?
RG = lost in R16
Wimbledon = lost in R16
USO = lost in QF
AO = finalist

Ljubicic reaching #3 his results were:
Metz = winner
Vienna = winner
Madrid Masters = finalist
Paris Masters = finalist
Chennai = winner
AO = QF
Zagreb = winner
IW = QF
Miami = finalist
MC = QF

these results are quite in line with the #1 player' results mentioned above, don't you think so?

LOL reaching the 4th round or better in every slam including a slam final is worse than a string of 250s, Masters and a load of 1st and 2nd round exits at the slams? :-D Only in your head.

But in any case you are totally missing the point. Yes, I am more than aware that you reach World No. 3 by winning and doing well at a lot of tournaments. The point is that a player as average, as uninspiring, as untalented, as lacking in creativity as Ljubicic should not be capable of those results in a normal tennis era. When a journeyman+ level player is spending a whole year in the Top 5, you know that men's tennis has hit rock bottom. If Borna Coric or Kyle Edmund have those results and are top 3 any time soon, you would know that something had gone badly wrong and I would be the first to admit it. If this era is weak, that era was comatose.

Any luck trying to find that Ljubicic showreel? Heck. Even Tommy Robredo has one. :-D
 

blablavla

G.O.A.T.
Hey, Blabby, you are the one who introduced the "you can judge a player by how well they do in their first 15 slams" nonsense metric in post #39. Don't complain when it backfires and shows that Federer failed this test much harder than every single player you are trying to label as weak.



LOL reaching the 4th round or better in every slam including a slam final is worse than a string of 250s, Masters and a load of 1st and 2nd round exits at the slams? :-D Only in your head.

But in any case you are totally missing the point. Yes, I am more than aware that you reach World No. 3 by winning and doing well at a lot of tournaments. The point is that a player as average, as uninspiring, as untalented, as lacking in creativity as Ljubicic should not be capable of those results in a normal tennis era. When a journeyman+ level player is spending a whole year in the Top 5, you know that men's tennis has hit rock bottom. If Borna Coric or Kyle Edmund have those results and are top 3 any time soon, you would know that something had gone badly wrong and I would be the first to admit it. If this era is weak, that era was comatose.

Any luck trying to find that Ljubicic showreel? Heck. Even Tommy Robredo has one. :-D

1. @socallefty was the one with the idea of 15 GS threshhold, so give the credit where it's due
2. don't chicken out, stick to the subject of discussion
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Hey, Blabby, you are the one who introduced the "you can judge a player by how well they do in their first 15 slams" nonsense metric in post #39. Don't complain when it backfires and shows that Federer failed this test much harder than every single player you are trying to label as weak.



LOL reaching the 4th round or better in every slam including a slam final is worse than a string of 250s, Masters and a load of 1st and 2nd round exits at the slams? :-D Only in your head.

But in any case you are totally missing the point. Yes, I am more than aware that you reach World No. 3 by winning and doing well at a lot of tournaments. The point is that a player as average, as uninspiring, as untalented, as lacking in creativity as Ljubicic should not be capable of those results in a normal tennis era. When a journeyman+ level player is spending a whole year in the Top 5, you know that men's tennis has hit rock bottom. If Borna Coric or Kyle Edmund have those results and are top 3 any time soon, you would know that something had gone badly wrong and I would be the first to admit it. If this era is weak, that era was comatose.

Any luck trying to find that Ljubicic showreel? Heck. Even Tommy Robredo has one. :-D
Zverev got to world no.3 without a single slam QF in 2017 :-D There's your worse no.3.

Ljubicic won IW in 2010 beating your boy :-D

And your cherrypicked 15 slams in hilarious considering that by age 22 Fed was a better player than any of these guys, including Rios, Thiem and the Next Gen.

I know you won't respond to this because you have no answers, but it's nice to see you get owned.
 

mike danny

Bionic Poster
Raonic had to face Murray in the finals of Wimbledon and Murray brought his absolute best level to that match.

Trust me, he would have smoked the Next Gen players just as easily as he did Raonic.

As for Nishikori, he beat Novak Djokovic on his way to reaching that final.

Yes, it's true that he lost to Cilic in the final.

But even Federer lost to Cilic at that year's US Open.

The man was just in excellent form during those two weeks in New York.
Murray is still an easier opponent than the Big 3 in a slam final and losing in straights to him is still pretty poor. Same for Nishikori against Cilic at the USO. Many guys like Soderling, Tsonga and Gonzalez for example, would have loved to face someone who wasn't Big 3 in their slam finals so in that sense, Raonic and Nishikori are lucky.

I don't deny that he would have smocked the Next Gen players in Raonic's place. They are much worse on grass than Raonic for starters.
 
Top