Peak Djokovic (2011) is NOT better than peak Federer

[NatF]

Think we need AO to start!

Arent you guys ever getting tired of discussing same stuff over and over?

Depends who I'm discussing it with. I have no interest in going in depth right now - but it's relatively quick to point out someones double standards

The AO could cause more problems than it solves, sadly I don't expect more gold like the "No Excuses" thread this time round

Oh definitely, I plain disagree with for example Fed fans who use his 2011 FO win over Novak (or 2 MPs at 2011 USO) to proclaim his superiority in these type of scenarios.

So many variables go into every match (form, match-up, level on the day, draw etc.) to draw such blanket conclusions. Not to mention that I do consider Fed's 2011 FO run to have been one of his best ones when it comes to clay.

Yeah I don't think single matches can ever be used to prove a rule. I wish everyone would try to be a bit more nuanced.

The FO 2011 was definitely one of his best runs, though I do think he would have liked those quicker balls in his mid 20's just as much if not more.

Excellent post. We're all biased and that's fine so long as we acknowledge it. When I joined here I nearly chose a neutral username but then decided it was fairer to let people know where I was coming from.

But you can easily spot the posters who are trying to be rational and those who think their support of a player entitles them to switch off their brain entirely.

Bias is fine. We all have our favourites. The problem I have are posters who make no effort to have informed opinions yet seemingly talk the most.

His arrogance is obvious, as is yours. Certainly agreeable Nadal fans exist, like vanioman and Bender. It's the personality, not fan allegiance. There's no shortage of arrogant Fed fans either, e.g. Kingroger, only since he's on "our" side, I find him hilarious rather than annoying - that's where the fan question apparently matters.

Actually, an arrogant but knowledgeable poster can still be decent - abmk and nolefam as an example, both fiercely opinionated, but basing their opinions on actual match viewing experience/analysis as much as general factoids. You aren't that though, I only see you bemoan Fedfans' supposedly massive unfairness at every turn, while almost unquestionably siding with fellow Rafans. Such impartial, much unbiased, so tennis analyst.

I strive to be Fedlike in my arrogance.

 

[Fedforever]

2006 Fed vs 2011 Nole would be fun to watch

Definitely. And these sort of hypothetical discussions can be really interesting when you have forum posters who have the technical knowledge to give an informed opinion (I definitely don't). Problem is they always get hijacked.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

No, it's not just those matches.

At the USO Novak has never had it easy against Fed, not even in 2015. It's safe to assume based on a set of 6 matches that Novak wouldn't be getting the better of Fed at the USO overall like other posters are saying.

With that 2-5 record in USO finals (and both times he won a loss to Federer was on the cards if Chokerer didn't take stage), I wouldn't put Djokovic over anyone with 3+ USO titles, be it peak or prime or results.

 

[mike danny]

With that 2-5 record in USO finals (and both times he won a loss to Federer was on the cards if Chokerer didn't take stage), I wouldn't put Djokovic over anyone with 3+ USO titles, be it peak or prime or results.

Not to mention losses to Murray, Wawrinka and especially Nishikori.

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

I strive to be Fedlike in my arrogance.

I meant FMug's arrogance, lol. You're laid-back, with "Fed-like" arrogance coming from good match knowledge like Federer's own comes from his player accolades.

 

[NatF]

I meant FMug's arrogance, lol. You're laid-back, with "Fed-like" arrogance coming from good match knowledge like Federer's own comes from his player accolades.

Ah yes, my arrogance goes without saying afterall

I'm going to use FMug from now on by the way

 

[AnOctorokForDinner]

Not to mention losses to Murray, Wawrinka and especially Nishikori.

All of the USO finals Djokovic lost - except 2010 where Nadal was simply superior - involved some exciting choking in crucial moments. The two times he won involved some cringeworthy Fed choking in crucial moments. For non-fans of Federer, switch 'exciting' and 'cringeworthy', still point is the same.

 

[NatF]

Not to mention losses to Murray, Wawrinka and especially Nishikori.

Djokovic probably shouldn't have made it to the final in 2016 considering he was injured. I think if he had played full matches all the way through he would have been quite hobbled in the final - more than he was already.

 

[mike danny]

Djokovic probably shouldn't have made it to the final in 2016 considering he was injured. I think if he had played full matches all the way through he would have been quite hobbled in the final - more than he was already.

Quite possibly.

 

[mike danny]

All of the USO finals Djokovic lost - except 2010 where Nadal was simply superior - involved some exciting choking in crucial moments. The two times he won involved some cringeworthy Fed choking in crucial moments. For non-fans of Federer, switch 'exciting' and 'cringeworthy', still point is the same.

Chocking and crumbling: sets 1 and 4 in the USO 2013 final are the main reference.

 

[ForumMember]

Well done @ForumMember! You are the only one in the discussion not giving insults to the others
Vamos

Thanks GOA. I was just stating what I truly believe so no reason for me to feel frustrated. I didn't make make any point just to rile up other posters or so.

Interestingly Fed's exploit of 2017 made me respect him more than ever did. But absolute denial of Fed fans to acknowledge how great Fed is playing just because necessary corollary of that acceptance would be honest acceptance of Federer's losses to Nadal and Djokovic is definitely irritating. Constant reference to peak, prime, slightly peak, slightly prime actually gets to my nerves. Anyways each to their own.

 

[TheGhostOfAgassi]

Thanks GOA. I was just stating what I truly believe so no reason for me to feel frustrated. I didn't make make any point just to rile up other posters or so.

Interestingly Fed's exploit of 2017 made me respect him more than ever did. But absolute denial of Fed fans to acknowledge how great Fed is playing just because necessary corollary of that acceptance would be honest acceptance of Federer's losses to Nadal and Djokovic is definitely irritating. Constant reference to peak, prime, slightly peak, slightly prime actually gets to my nerves. Anyways each to their own.

Yes its impossible to discuss with having peak prime stuff as parameters. Anyways, things will stay as they are in here. And good job not insulting back

 

[Jonas78]

He had started winning less after year 2007. In 2008 he won just one GS. In 2009 he won two (both thanks he could avoid Rafa). In 2010 he won just one.

So his drought didn't kick in at AO 2010. His drought kick in as early as after USO 2007. After that he could win any GS only when he didn't have to play Nadal and Djokovic (with an exception of USO 2008).

Isn't age of 26 too early for age related decline to kick in? Particularly more when you are doing physically fine enough to win two GS and 3 masters at the age of 36?

If you think objectively, it's not so difficult to find why most of the people believe that Fed's winning rate slowed down with emergence of big 3, not because age related decline.

So you seriously think Roger has been on the same level from 2003 to 2017? Well thats something...

 

[KINGROGER]

Knew you wouldn't accept the fact that outside big 4 Federer lost more in 2007 then in 2011. Facts are there. Numbers are there. You told 2007 was part of peak Fed and that argument has been put to shredder. Rest you can keep regurgitating same peak-non peak imaginative theories. I am a Nadal fan, but I wouldn't say that he lost to Djokovic in FO 2015 as he was past his peak. Yes he was out of form for whole year but if I say that he was losing to Djokovic because he was physically declined than I would be being dishonest just like bunch of Fed Fans who try to attribute Fed's losses to his physical decline. Physical decline is one way journey and if Federer had started that journey in 2007 then by now, full 10 years after that start, he should be geriatric. Anyways you can keep beating same tune but for most of the ears, that would just be cacophony.

Fed 2007 3 slams 1 final 1 WTF 2 masters
Fed 2011 0 slams 1 final 1 WTF 1 masters

 

[Fiero425]

Djokovic probably shouldn't have made it to the final in 2016 considering he was injured. I think if he had played full matches all the way through he would have been quite hobbled in the final - more than he was already.

That was "some" dream run given to Nole; walkovers, defaults, and other players so broken down he was never challenged! Happened to Nadal a lot in the past! IMO he hasn't been the same since winning his FO almost 2 years ago! The last time he really played "above the rim" was probably 2016 Qatar when he eviscerated Nadal in the final! He wasn't missing much of anything and embarrassed Nadal 1 & 2! He struggled with his health and game after that he routinely won before like IW, Miami, and even Madrid where Tiriac invited him to perform as a WC! He won his FO and even making other finals, he just didn't look himself!

 

[KINGROGER]

He had started winning less after year 2007. In 2008 he won just one GS. In 2009 he won two (both thanks he could avoid Rafa). In 2010 he won just one.

So his drought didn't kick in at AO 2010. His drought kick in as early as after USO 2007. After that he could win any GS only when he didn't have to play Nadal and Djokovic (with an exception of USO 2008).

Isn't age of 26 too early for age related decline to kick in? Particularly more when you are doing physically fine enough to win two GS and 3 masters at the age of 36?

If you think objectively, it's not so difficult to find why most of the people believe that Fed's winning rate slowed down with emergence of big 3, not because age related decline.

What do Djokovic and Nadal have to do with Federer losing to Berdych x2, Tsonga? Not to mention he beat Djokovic at both 08-09 USOs. There goes that theory up in smoke.

 

[ForumMember]

Fed 2007 3 slams 1 final 1 WTF 2 masters
Fed 2011 0 slams 1 final 1 WTF 1 masters

I explained that earlier as well. In 2011, Federer lost just 5 matches outside big 4 while in 2007 he lost 6 outside big 4. So in 2011, when not playing big 4, he was at the same level or even better than 2007 (if you go strictly by no. of losses) but he didn't win those many tournaments because he could not pass Nadal or Djokovic usually. If there were no Nadal Djokovic in 2011, his 2011 would have looked as prolific as 2007. You can reverse it by saying that if in 2007 Nadal and Djokovic were at the same level of 2011, Federer's 2007 would have looked same as 2011.

You may use all this analysis but it's not rocket science to figure out if Nadal (outside clay) and Djokovic had arrived earlier than Federer would not have won as many GS as he did in 2007. Or other way between 04-07 Fed had it relatively easy , though he could have played who all were there.

 

[Fiero425]

I explained that earlier as well. In 2011, Federer lost just 5 matches outside big 4 while in 2007 he lost 6 outside big 4. So in 2011, when not playing big 4, he was at the same level or even better than 2007 (if you go strictly by no. of losses) but he didn't win those many tournaments because he could not pass Nadal or Djokovic usually. If there were no Nadal Djokovic in 2011, his 2011 would have looked as prolific as 2007. You can reverse it by saying that if in 2007 Nadal and Djokovic were at the same level of 2011, Federer's 2007 would have looked same as 2011.

You may use all this analysis but it's not rocket science to figure out if Nadal (outside clay) and Djokovic had arrived earlier than Federer would not have won as many GS as he did in 2007. Or other way between 04-07 Fed had it relatively easy , though he could have played who all were there.

It's always someone in the way of extending the greatness of some players! Federer would have won more than 20 majors if not for Rafa (1st) and Nole (later)! He was routinely owned by them at different stages in his career! I still don't know how Roger's doing it today; esp. his wins over Rafa! Rafa also would have been well over 20 majors if not for Nole who beat him in so many major finals; the only player who has 2 seven match win streaks over him! Nole had it the toughest with "Fedal" early, but he also would have matched them in majors if not for Andy and Stan who snuck up on him in a handful of major finals! That's how the cookie crumbles!

 

[Fedforever]

I explained that earlier as well. In 2011, Federer lost just 5 matches outside big 4 while in 2007 he lost 6 outside big 4. So in 2011, when not playing big 4, he was at the same level or even better than 2007 (if you go strictly by no. of losses) but he didn't win those many tournaments because he could not pass Nadal or Djokovic usually. If there were no Nadal Djokovic in 2011, his 2011 would have looked as prolific as 2007. You can reverse it by saying that if in 2007 Nadal and Djokovic were at the same level of 2011, Federer's 2007 would have looked same as 2011.

You may use all this analysis but it's not rocket science to figure out if Nadal (outside clay) and Djokovic had arrived earlier than Federer would not have won as many GS as he did in 2007. Or other way between 04-07 Fed had it relatively easy , though he could have played who all were there.

You can't conclude that at all. If Federer had been the same age as Djoko in 2015 then he might have won given that it was a close match despite the age disparity. Of course, we'll never know and it doesn't in the least devalue Djoko's achievements since he can only beat the players put in front of him. By the same token if Agassi had been the same age as Federer when he played him in USO matches then perhaps he would have won, but what does it matter?

If you maintain this argument that age makes no difference then you are also devaluing Nadal's achievement in being the oldest ever No 1.

 

[Fedforever]

So 2009 is now a bad year for Fed? 2 slam titles and 2 finals. Terrible.

 

[Fiero425]

So 2009 is now a bad year for Fed? 2 slam titles and 2 finals. Terrible.

It wasn't terrible, but he was aided by Nadal being upset at the FO by Soderling and later out for a few months with a knee injury! Having his pigeon in the '09 final at Wimbledon also helped! That was an awful match regardless of the epic length and score of the match! Roddick had it and blew his chance with multiple set points in set 2 which Roger confesses would have been the nail in his coffin! Roger was up on Del Po in the '09 USO final and gave it away! I saw a decline in him, but the competition so weak, he still got to his appointed rounds and finals!

 

[JackGates]

Ok, but isn't peak comparison how they did vs the entire field?

Otherwise it makes no sense to use the h2h, because Roddick would have higher peak than Djokovic in this case. But then again, Fed owns Roddick and we go in circles.

So, I don't see how Fed did vs Djokovic 2011 has anything to do with their peaks, since it's vs the field.

Also, you need completely different skills to win in 2005 vs 2015, so different doesn't really mean better.

Also, are we talking relative or absolute peak? Of course Roddick has higher peak than Laver, because of evolution of tennis, but obviously Laver has higher relative peak too.

All we can really say is that Federer's peak lasted longer and he was more dominant, he won faster and the scores were much more dominant.

I don't think four in a row proves much either, because if Fed had to play Murray at the French, I'm sure he wins four in a row too.

So, we can't know who has higher absolute peak, because the game changed, you need different skills in 2015, but Federer for sure had higher and longer relative peak if you go by the numbers.

 

[mike danny]

It wasn't terrible, but he was aided by Nadal being upset at the FO by Soderling and later out for a few months with a knee injury! Having his pigeon in the '09 final at Wimbledon also helped! That was an awful match regardless of the epic length and score of the match! Roddick had it and blew his chance with multiple set points in set 2 which Roger confesses would have been the nail in his coffin! Roger was up on Del Po in the '09 USO final and gave it away! I saw a decline in him, but the competition so weak, he still got to his appointed rounds and finals!

LOL wut, m8? 2009 competition weak? That's hilarious. It was one of the strongest an most competitive years in recent times. The only stronger years than 2009 were probably 2011 and 2012.

 

[mike danny]

It's always someone in the way of extending the greatness of some players! Federer would have won more than 20 majors if not for Rafa (1st) and Nole (later)! He was routinely owned by them at different stages in his career! I still don't know how Roger's doing it today; esp. his wins over Rafa! Rafa also would have been well over 20 majors if not for Nole who beat him in so many major finals; the only player who has 2 seven match win streaks over him! Nole had it the toughest with "Fedal" early, but he also would have matched them in majors if not for Andy and Stan who snuck up on him in a handful of major finals! That's how the cookie crumbles!

I will let you know Nole beat Nadal in 3 major finals, exactly as many as Federer. But somehow Nole has beaten Nadal in "so many" major finals. Get your facts straight first.

 

[mike danny]

It's always someone in the way of extending the greatness of some players! Federer would have won more than 20 majors if not for Rafa (1st) and Nole (later)! He was routinely owned by them at different stages in his career! I still don't know how Roger's doing it today; esp. his wins over Rafa! Rafa also would have been well over 20 majors if not for Nole who beat him in so many major finals; the only player who has 2 seven match win streaks over him! Nole had it the toughest with "Fedal" early, but he also would have matched them in majors if not for Andy and Stan who snuck up on him in a handful of major finals! That's how the cookie crumbles!

What happened between Federer and Djokovic after 2012 was the natural progression of the sport: the younger player taking over after the older player lost his edge. In no way to I hold this against Federer. And I honestly don't understand why people do. Peak Djokovic got the better of an older Federer, just like it was supposed to happen. At least he was there to receive this beatings like a man unlike a certain Spaniard who dodged Djokovic repeatedly in majors and thus maintained his warrior persona, while it's Fed who unfairly gets bashed.

 

[Fedforever]

And I honestly don't understand why people do. Peak Djokovic got the better of an older Federer, just like it was supposed to happen.

Yes, I'm always puzzled by that too. Of course during 2015 you're disappointed in the moment. But thinking that 2015 was a "bad year" for Fed is inexplicable.

 

[JackGates]

What happened between Federer and Djokovic after 2012 was the natural progression of the sport: the younger player taking over after the older player lost his edge. In no way to I hold this against Federer. And I honestly don't understand why people do. Peak Djokovic got the better of an older Federer, just like it was supposed to happen. At least he was there to receive this beatings like a man unlike a certain Spaniard who dodged Djokovic repeatedly in majors and thus maintained his warrior persona, while it's Fed who unfairly gets bashed.

I was never convinced by the age excuse. It was partly bad luck, that Federer didn't change his racket sooner That is the main reason he had problems. And of course they change the AO court and they slowed down other courts with different balls.

Federer is 11-1 vs Nadal and Murray after the racket change even after age 33, while he was having losing h2h vs them.

No, it's just bad luck really and not age. Even in his peak, Fed had problems versus two handers with grinding style.

Also matchups are important too. Murray is 3-0 vs Fed in Shanghai, while Fed owns Rafa and Nole there.

Murray is 6-0 vs Kyrgios, while Kyrgios is what 6-5 vs other top 3? I know it's close.

So, no, it's matchups and bad luck about the h2h and nothing else, it's not age.

 

[mike danny]

I was never convinced by the age excuse. It was partly bad luck, that Federer didn't change his racket sooner That is the main reason he had problems. And of course they change the AO court and they slowed down other courts with different balls.

Federer is 11-1 vs Nadal and Murray after the racket change even after age 33, while he was having losing h2h vs them.

No, it's just bad luck really and not age. Even in his peak, Fed had problems versus two handers with grinding style.

Also matchups are important too. Murray is 3-0 vs Fed in Shanghai, while Fed owns Rafa and Nole there.

Murray is 6-0 vs Kyrgios, while Kyrgios is what 6-5 vs other top 3? I know it's close.

So, no, it's matchups and bad luck about the h2h and nothing else, it's not age.

Federer had never lost 4 straight slam matches to Nole before 2014. So yeah, it was also due to age.

Murray is not an ATG, so Fed wasn't going to be troubled by him to the same extent. And Nadal hasn't been at his peak for a while, which has helped Fed in their match-up.

Age certainly is a factor when you compare a 33-34 year old Federer to a peak Djokovic in 2015. People act like it's an excuse. It isn't. It is a fact.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I was never convinced by the age excuse. It was partly bad luck, that Federer didn't change his racket sooner That is the main reason he had problems. And of course they change the AO court and they slowed down other courts with different balls.

Federer is 11-1 vs Nadal and Murray after the racket change even after age 33, while he was having losing h2h vs them.

No, it's just bad luck really and not age. Even in his peak, Fed had problems versus two handers with grinding style.

Also matchups are important too. Murray is 3-0 vs Fed in Shanghai, while Fed owns Rafa and Nole there.

Murray is 6-0 vs Kyrgios, while Kyrgios is what 6-5 vs other top 3? I know it's close.

So, no, it's matchups and bad luck about the h2h and nothing else, it's not age.

Really?

 

[mike danny]

I was never convinced by the age excuse. It was partly bad luck, that Federer didn't change his racket sooner That is the main reason he had problems. And of course they change the AO court and they slowed down other courts with different balls.

Federer is 11-1 vs Nadal and Murray after the racket change even after age 33, while he was having losing h2h vs them.

No, it's just bad luck really and not age. Even in his peak, Fed had problems versus two handers with grinding style.

Also matchups are important too. Murray is 3-0 vs Fed in Shanghai, while Fed owns Rafa and Nole there.

Murray is 6-0 vs Kyrgios, while Kyrgios is what 6-5 vs other top 3? I know it's close.

So, no, it's matchups and bad luck about the h2h and nothing else, it's not age.

And by all means, elaborate on the bolded.

 

[Fiero425]

Really?

Oh stop! Hewitt had no real weapon to hurt Roger; even though he was a grinder! How long did it take you to come up with this false equivalent?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh stop! Hewitt had no real weapon to hurt Roger; even though he was a grinder! How long did it take you to come up with this false equivalent?

Here we go with the "no weapons" BS about Hewitt.

He was pretty much a power baseliner by 2005 and started pushing Roger around the court quite a bit during some of their matches that year.

 

[mike danny]

Oh stop! Hewitt had no real weapon to hurt Roger; even though he was a grinder! How long did it take you to come up with this false equivalent?

No weapons? Watch the 2005 USO SF.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No weapons? Watch the 2005 USO SF.

Or even his Australian Open 2005 match against Nalbandian. His backhand was insane. It was becoming a real weapon.

 

[Fiero425]

Or even his Australian Open 2005 match against Nalbandian. His backhand was insane. It was becoming a real weapon.

So you picked a couple matches when "in the zone!" I'm telling you Hewitt overall didn't have real pace on his shots! People like Rafa and Nole would kill him, running him into the ground! Hewitt played the best he could, but even when max'd out, he's nowhere near the grinder of today's stars! He would get nowhere near #1! I watched him back in the day and there were players that were not impressed by his style of play! He got his 2 majors; 1 when Sampras was on his last legs at the USO and that Wimbledon in '02 when the competition was at it's weakest! Sampras and Agassi were upset by no names in the 2nd Round for Gawd-sakes!

 

[Deleted member 307496]

So you picked a couple matches when "in the zone!" I'm telling you Hewitt overall didn't have real pace on his shots! People like Rafa and Nole would kill him, running him into the ground! Hewitt played the best he could, but even when max'd out, he's nowhere near the grinder of today's stars! He would get nowhere near #1! I watched him back in the day and there were players that were not impressed by his style of play! He got his 2 majors; 1 when Sampras was on his last legs at the USO and that Wimbledon in '02 when the competition was at it's weakest! Sampras and Agassi were upset by no names in the 2nd Round for Gawd-sakes!

If Andy Murray could get to No. 1 so could Lleyton Hewitt.

Agassi and Hewitt had an even H2H and that's prime Agassi. He was also his biggest rival during that time period even if they didn't play that often -- he was still No. 2 behind Lleyton.

Think you terribly underrate Hewitt and overrate everyone else.

And Lleyton was crushing Sampras before he was on his "last legs" in 2000, victories at Queens and a crushing defeat at the Masters Cup -- and that's a teenage Lleyton.

He'd have won majors in this era too. It's not like he even had a bad H2H against Nadal, it's like 4-7. He also pushed him pretty hard in Hamburg 2007 after having 2 surgeries and being ranked outside the top 15. Nadal was No. 2 and a clay phenom already.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

And no, I picked a couple of matches in 2005 specifically because he played with that kind of pace the whole year. It's disingenuous to say he had no pace and "wouldn't become No. 1" today when a guy like Andy Murray did with so-so competition.

 

[Fiero425]

If Andy Murray could get to No. 1 so could Lleyton Hewitt.

I'm no fan of Murray, but he gets the most out of his game for the most part being a grinder! He would probably win more if he pushed it a little by going into the net! He causes some of his own problems by allowing "no names," WC's, LL's, & qualifiers to take him to the limit unnecessarily! All you need to do is look at the FO from 2016! From the 1st round he was going 5 sets, having to come back from the dead against a doubles' specialist; Stepanek! That's probably why he faded in the final against Nole who was very vulnerable at the time!

 

[RF-18]

Really?

Was that the first round of USO?

 

[Fiero425]

And no, I picked a couple of matches in 2005 specifically because he played with that kind of pace the whole year. It's disingenuous to say he had no pace and "wouldn't become No. 1" today when a guy like Andy Murray did with so-so competition.

Honey, he was already past it! He was winning 5 years before that! He may have picked up the pace by '05, but he still wasn't winning anything meaningful!

 

[killerboi2]

If Andy Murray could get to No. 1 so could Lleyton Hewitt.

A big part of Murray getting to no 1 were those deep runs in clay season. Hewitt wouldn't have been able to do that. He hasn't done much on clay outside a couple 250 titles. Another of the many reasons this nonsense that both are on the same level doesn't work.

 

[abmk]

Honey, he was already past it! He was winning 5 years before that! He may have picked up the pace by '05, but he still wasn't winning anything meaningful!

Nope, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005 were all peak years for hewitt.

Just that fed was too good in 04-05.
He went past his prime from 2006 onwards.

 

[Fiero425]

A big part of Murray getting to no 1 were those deep runs in clay season. Hewitt wouldn't have been able to do that. He hasn't done much on clay outside a couple 250 titles. Another of the many reasons this nonsense that both are on the same level doesn't work.

Thank you! That obviously put him at the top; criminal seeing as Nole won 2 majors, was a finalist @ USO, and took 4 Masters! Those 500's really helped Andy to take over #1 where it came down to the YEC final!

 

[KINGROGER]

I explained that earlier as well. In 2011, Federer lost just 5 matches outside big 4 while in 2007 he lost 6 outside big 4. So in 2011, when not playing big 4, he was at the same level or even better than 2007 (if you go strictly by no. of losses) but he didn't win those many tournaments because he could not pass Nadal or Djokovic usually. If there were no Nadal Djokovic in 2011, his 2011 would have looked as prolific as 2007. You can reverse it by saying that if in 2007 Nadal and Djokovic were at the same level of 2011, Federer's 2007 would have looked same as 2011.

You may use all this analysis but it's not rocket science to figure out if Nadal (outside clay) and Djokovic had arrived earlier than Federer would not have won as many GS as he did in 2007. Or other way between 04-07 Fed had it relatively easy , though he could have played who all were there.

In 2007 he beat peak Nadal at Hamburg and Wimbledon. 2011 gets nowhere near Nadal both those matches.

Those Canas matches have skewed your mind. Those are upsets rather than general form.

Nalbandian indoors 2007 is a different planet to likes of Berdych and Gasquet. That isn’t a lesser player.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

A big part of Murray getting to no 1 were those deep runs in clay season. Hewitt wouldn't have been able to do that. He hasn't done much on clay outside a couple 250 titles. Another of the many reasons this nonsense that both are on the same level doesn't work.

If Lleyton had lesser clay court opposition and in general like Murray did in 2016 in 2005 he'd have been No. 1.

Keep overrating Murray though. Your love for him is hilarious.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Well done @ForumMember! You are the only one in the discussion not giving insults to the others
Vamos

LOOOL! Such an unbiased poster.

 

[killerboi2]

Keep overrating Murray though. Your love for him is hilarious.

Saying he's better than Hewitt isn't overrating him. And no, Hewitt wouldn't have beaten Murray's clay opposition. Guy's never had a deep run at FO in his career. Nice try though lmao. Keep overrating those players from 04-07, it is pretty entertaining.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Saying he's better than Hewitt isn't overrating him. And no, Hewitt wouldn't have beaten Murray's clay opposition. Guy's never had a deep run at FO in his career. Nice try though lmao. Keep overrating those players from 04-07, it is pretty entertaining.

Is it as entertaining as overrating Pete's opposition?

 

[Service Ace]

Father time is undefeated...

Except apparently to the idiots on this forum (i.e. anyone who says age doesn't matter)

 

[killerboi2]

Is it as entertaining as overrating Pete's opposition?

Lmao, knew someone would bring up Pete. Polarised conditions, no bazooka's with huge sweetspots as well as a deep clay field. Pete also had big wins against players on clay. Again, great effort though.