Peak Djokovic vs Peak Nadal

[Chico]

I might be...Djokovic needs 10 majors or he's underperformed in my opinion.



Just banter man, don't take me too seriously

Novak was awesome in the final of Wimbledon this year but didn't really light it up anywhere else - for whatever reason.

A minor match up advantage, yet more evidence Djokovic majors in minors :lol:

So according to this Wimbledon is a minor :shock:

So much hate, so much hate...

 

[Djokovic2011]

Spoken like a true Novak fan. Of course it's not all about the slam for you, but even if we don't just count on the slams, Nadal has the masters record...

I just think there's more to tennis than four tournaments a year. And I'm entitled to that view.

 

[The_Order]

I just think there's more to tennis than four tournaments a year. And I'm entitled to that view.

Of course there's more to tennis than 4 tournaments. But those 4 are the most sought after and players with significantly more majors will always be considered better players.

Anyway, even without just looking at majors, Nadal holds the Masters titles record.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Of course there's more to tennis than 4 tournaments. But those 4 are the most sought after and players with significantly more majors will always be considered better players.

Anyway, even without just looking at majors, Nadal holds the Masters titles record.

WTFs > Masters 1000s and Nole's won more of those than Nadal. :wink:

 

[The_Order]

WTFs > Masters 1000s and Nole's won more of those than Nadal. :wink:

Yes and majors >>>>> WTF and Nadal's won more of those than Novak honey buns.

 

[Chico]

WTFs > Masters 1000s and Nole's won more of those than Nadal. :wink:

Please stop with this "not only slams are important". It just hurts Novak's credibility. Listening to you someone would think that Novak won no slams. The flashnews for all in this thread is that Novak has 7 and will finish in double digits by the time his career is over. That is plenty, and all this ridiculous "majoring in minor" nonsense is just Fedal fanboy way of discrediting Novak and you should not participate in that. Thank you.

Also Novak is better player than Nadal since 2011 and has higher peak in both slams and outside slams. PERIOD. No Fedal fanboy can disprove this obvious truth. Sorry.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Yes and majors >>>>> WTF and Nadal's won more of those than Novak honey buns.

Can't argue with you there sweets but I wouldn't say a major is five times as important as the WTF is.

 

[The_Order]

Can't argue with you there sweets but I wouldn't say a major is five times as important as the WTF is.

Ahh well. Having 7 more majors is better than having 4 less WTFs sugar pops.

 

[Djokovic2011]

Ahh well. Having 7 more majors is better than having 4 less WTFs sugar pops.

Not for much longer baby boy. :wink:

 

[The_Order]

Not for much longer baby boy. :wink:

Who are you kidding? Novak can't win multiple majors in a year to save himself and he's going to usurp Nadal?

He'd have to win more majors at age 28-33 than when in his prime.

Forget it, Nadal has already stopped him from having any chance.

It's even a very tough call to say that Nadal can equal Fed's majors and he's only 3 behind him candy cane...

 

[Djokovic2011]

Who are you kidding? Novak can't win multiple majors in a year to save himself and he's going to usurp Nadal?

He'd have to win more majors at age 28-33 than when in his prime.

Forget it, Nadal has already stopped him from having any chance.

It's even a very tough call to say that Nadal can equal Fed's majors and he's only 3 behind him candy cane...

I didn't mean that he'll catch Nadal, just that he'll reduce the 7 slam gap by the end of their careers. :wink:

 

[TopFH]

I didn't mean that he'll catch Nadal, just that he'll reduce the 7 slam gap by the end of their careers. :wink:

Novak will win anything between 10-13 slams. I can easily see him win at least 2 more AOs and 1 FO. I do have my doubts about Wimbledon and the USO, but he'll probably win at least one more of each, giving him a total of 13 slams.

 

[The_Order]

Novak will win anything between 10-13 slams. I can easily see him win at least 2 more AOs and 1 FO. I do have my doubts about Wimbledon and the USO, but he'll probably win at least one more of each, giving him a total of 13 slams.

I like Novak, but I don't see him winning 6 more majors. He's getting older too and he'd have to perform much better than Federer did at the same age.

3 more is more realistic for me.

 

[TopFH]

I like Novak, but I don't see him winning 6 more majors. He's getting older too and he'd have to perform much better than Federer did at the same age.

3 more is more realistic for me.

Yeah, 10 sounds like a safe bet. I hope that if he only gets 3 more, at least one is an FO.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

Yeah, 10 sounds like a safe bet. I hope that if he only gets 3 more, at least one is an FO.

Novak should get two RG, one USO IMO.

He will likely get an AO instead of the USO, but I'd like Fed's record to be preserved, thank you very much.

 

[kandamrgam]

Novak should get two RG, one USO IMO.

He will likely get an AO instead of the USO, but I'd like Fed's record to be preserved, thank you very much.

Roger currently leads the most no. of titles in Open era at AO, WC, UO. That's 3/4 of the Slams. Impeccable!

But I would love to see Nole get a 5th AO. Every other Slam has 5+ times winners. AO should have one. Now it gives the false impression that AO is the toughest to dominate

 

[NatF]

Roger currently leads the most no. of titles in Open era at AO, WC, UO. That's 3/4 of the Slams. Impeccable!

But I would love to see Nole get a 5th AO. Every other Slam has 5+ times winners. AO should have one. Now it gives the false impression that AO is the toughest to dominate

The solution to that is Roger to win the AO in January

 

[kandamrgam]

The solution to that is Roger to win the AO in January

Nooooooooooo................. :-Chico

 

[kandamrgam]

Yes, am damn sure that Nadal's mental balance looses while playing against Djokovic. Am talking only while playing against Djoker, and this is very much visible in Nadal's body language

I agree with that. But has been a lot lesser since 2012. Almost no effect of it at all in Slams. He clearly do struggle a bit in Bo3s.

But your first statement was something like "Rafa is mentally weaker" or "Nole is mentally superior" or something. Misleading I must say!

 

[kandamrgam]

I agree with both of you and have done so for years. Many Rafa-fans don't like to discuss - or rather, dismiss - Delpo's potential for doing some serious damage in 2010 (and beyond), but I believe he could have if not for the wrist injury.
Safin, yeah. He would be deadly vs. Rafa. I rewatched a 2004 match between him and Fed the other day and he has such effortless power on both wings that it boggles the mind - one of my all time favorites

Trust me I'm not one of those guys who gets caught up in hype, at least I try to not be. If all my friends go gaga about some movie I'm most likely not liking it when I watch it, and if my friends all diss a movie I might like it. It has got to do with the expectation set in our minds.

But in spite of all the hype and hoopla around Safin, I still am in awe of Safin every time I watch him. You got the word right there, "effortless". If "effortlessness" and "natural" are the keywords then I believe Safin and Federer are the two biggest talents we have had, at least in the last 15 years. Raw technique, smooth dynamics and efficiency to the core. The guy had good serve, FH, BH, volleys, not so bad defense. There are times I believe Safin was a bigger talent than Federer. Safin scores on BH and serve. Federer on FH and movement. If it's FH+BH then I give it to Safin. I'm not talking of the potency of the weapons, but just the effortlessness.

The guy needed Fedalovic like work ethics. A third guy who is in that bracket is Kei today, I believe. The guy is pure class.

 

[Bender]

Of course there's more to tennis than 4 tournaments. But those 4 are the most sought after and players with significantly more majors will always be considered better players.

Anyway, even without just looking at majors, Nadal holds the Masters titles record.

At the rate Djokovic has been going, not for much longer, I'm afraid...

 

[Deleted member 688153]

The solution to that is Roger to win the AO in January

That's all I want for Christmas!

 

[NatF]

That's all I want for Christmas!

Want a final there against Novak. Could be epic - those two need a couple more slam finals before it's all over.

 

[kandamrgam]

Logically your argument suffers a fallacy. Nobody is ever forced to make a choice between beating Nadal or whoever 7:0 or have the overall lead. Naturally a tennis player at that position wants both.

It is really very simple: a record is a record. If everyone wants to achieve the record and everyone is given a fair chance to achieve it, then the only reason a record still stands is because it is really hard. You don't have any argument to dismiss it because I will simply ask you two questions: "don't you want to win every match?" And "If you think it is nothing why haven't you or anyone else broken it?"

That's why streaks in general is meaningful. Nadal's 10 years slam winning record is a streak too. So is CYGS. (Again you say it is nothing, is it desirable? If answer is yes, why don't you break it?)

Specifically to this thread, who has the upperhand prime vs prime, that 7:0 streak is the most relevant stat. 2010 was Nadal's prime.

This discussion is not about who is the greater player. NAdal is still by far the better player than Nole. It just at Nole's prime he cleared dominated Nadal as the 7:0 streak shows.

I believe your argument has some serious flaws. I will break my arguments down.

1. The point when I or other people raise by asking someone to choose between A and B is not by ignoring the fact that both A and B are important/valued. Of course every single positive tiny dot on a player's resume will be valued. The obvious question such hypotheticals raise is "which one is more important". May be like you have to choose your wife from two options available

2. I believe streaks are not important. They are cherished, valued, liked. It doesn't add to greatness, "necessarily". What it shows is the player had a continued domination for some period X. If X is all it matters then that player is the best. If X+Y is the period you care about then overall performances of X+Y matters more. Not only more, it renders the streaks to nothing. It becomes double counting. How does it matter if it comes one after the other or at alternate times? How is one better than other?

For eg, Roger played 23 consecutive SF from 2004-2010. Now when I have to asses Roger's prime years from say 2003 to 2010, the fact that Roger was a part of 26 SF overall during that period trumps his 23 consecutive ones. Why is 26 not more important than 23? I believe it is. Why is 26 not a better indicator of consistency and domination than 23? Is "continued" domination greater than "overall" domination?

Or think about this example which I have talked about a couple of times before on this board. Players A and B play for 500 weeks. A becomes no.1 for 200 consecutive weeks. B becomes no.1 for the remaining 300 weeks.
- The question here to ask is whose record is better? I think we both agree B dominated tennis better and hence B wins.
- Or another way to ask the same question is, does A's "consecutive" domination makes his record "better" than B's? I dont think so. I hope you dont think so too.
- Now ask does the fact that A having higher consecutive run than B makes A's record "any" closer to B's? No is my answer.

3. As I said before, players want to win everything. Every point even. Pros play to win. But somethings doesnt matter in the grands scheme of things. Like Rafa wants to win every 250s and 500s he enters. Does it add to his greatness? Not much.

4. Difficulty "solely" is not the criterion. A golden set is the most difficult task in tennis. Everybody would like to have won one. Does it matter? Negligible effect on greatness. In today's times if a player wins a golden set it's "almost" certain the other guy played too poorly.

5. A record is a record. I didn't argue otherwise. Only that some records dont matter as much as others. h2h is itself ranks pretty low among others. A "streak" in that h2h is nothing.

6. It depends on what you consider Novak's prime. For me it's from 2008. The h2h is 17-17. Even the sets won are the same!. But I give advantage to Nole here because there are more matches on clay, "relatively" speaking. The Slam h2h is 6-3 in favour of Rafa. 4 on hard, 4 on clay, 4 on grass. Pretty even there.

2011 Nole should be peak. Peak for peak, from 2011-2013 Rafa-Nole is 6-10. 8 on hard, 7 on clay and 1 on grass. So real advantage Nole there. In Slams they are: 3-3. Nole leads on hard and grass, Rafa leads on grass.

2011 Nole was absolute peak Nole. I wouldn't read too much from that 7-0. 2013 Rafa vs 2011 Nole should be a great contest. I believe Nole will take AO and Rafa UO. It can go either way in FO and WC.

All in all I believe Nole has the edge, but it increasingly looks like Nole in Bo3s and Rafa in Bo5s. My point is all that trumps 7-0 streak which is just a stretch. When h2h is analyzed, which itself is lower on the rung of accomplishments, 7-0 is not more relevant than all those I mentioned above. In fact it is irrelevant. Rafa also has 5 match winning streaks against Roger, Novak and Andy individually. Doesn't matter really.

7. Streaks tell you things. Of course it has meaning. Does it have a value over overall accomplishments? I believe no.

8. The only streak I believe has a value and adds to greatness is CYGS. Only because its historically seen as an accomplishment. It was called the Grand Slam. Even then I do think it's slightly overplayed. That also includes Rafa's 10 straight years winning a Major. Is it easy? No. Does it tell you something? Yes. Does it adds to Rafa's greatness over Pete and Roger who made it only up to 8 years? No is my opinion. Of course Roger made the most out of his 8 years. In the grand scheme of things they all even out.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Want a final there against Novak. Could be epic - those two need a couple more slam finals before it's all over.

Mouth watering final, after the classics they had in 2014.

If both are full flowing, and carry the form they had late this season into next season, AO final will be hottest ticket around. Can you imagine, two four time AO champions battling each other, for the right for one of them to outright own the record....That has never happened in a slam before!

 

[MichaelNadal]

I believe your argument has some serious flaws. I will break my arguments down.

1. The point when I or other people raise by asking someone to choose between A and B is not by ignoring the fact that both A and B are important/valued. Of course every single positive tiny dot on a player's resume will be valued. The obvious question such hypotheticals raise is "which one is more important". May be like you have to choose your wife from two options available

2. I believe streaks are not important. They are cherished, valued, liked. It doesn't add to greatness, "necessarily". What it shows is the player had a continued domination for some period X. If X is all it matters then that player is the best. If X+Y is the period you care about then overall performances of X+Y matters more. Not only more, it renders the streaks to nothing. It becomes double counting. How does it matter if it comes one after the other or at alternate times? How is one better than other?

For eg, Roger played 23 consecutive SF from 2004-2010. Now when I have to asses Roger's prime years from say 2003 to 2010, the fact that Roger was a part of 26 SF overall during that period trumps his 23 consecutive ones. Why is 26 not more important than 23? I believe it is. Why is 26 not a better indicator of consistency and domination than 23? Is "continued" domination greater than "overall" domination?

Or think about this example which I have talked about a couple of times before on this board. Players A and B play for 500 weeks. A becomes no.1 for 200 consecutive weeks. B becomes no.1 for the remaining 300 weeks.
- The question here to ask is whose record is better? I think we both agree B dominated tennis better and hence B wins.
- Or another way to ask the same question is, does A's "consecutive" domination makes his record "better" than B's? I dont think so. I hope you dont think so too.
- Now ask does the fact that A having higher consecutive run than B makes A's record "any" closer to B's? No is my answer.

3. As I said before, players want to win everything. Every point even. Pros play to win. But somethings doesnt matter in the grands scheme of things. Like Rafa wants to win every 250s and 500s he enters. Does it add to his greatness? Not much.

4. Difficulty "solely" is not the criterion. A golden set is the most difficult task in tennis. Everybody would like to have won one. Does it matter? Negligible effect on greatness. In today's times if a player wins a golden set it's "almost" certain the other guy played too poorly.

5. A record is a record. I didn't argue otherwise. Only that some records dont matter as much as others. h2h is itself ranks pretty low among others. A "streak" in that h2h is nothing.

6. It depends on what you consider Novak's prime. For me it's from 2008. The h2h is 17-17. Even the sets won are the same!. But I give advantage to Nole here because there are more matches on clay, "relatively" speaking. The Slam h2h is 6-3 in favour of Rafa. 4 on hard, 4 on clay, 4 on grass. Pretty even there.

2011 Nole should be peak. Peak for peak, from 2011-2013 Rafa-Nole is 6-10. 8 on hard, 7 on clay and 1 on grass. So real advantage Nole there. In Slams they are: 3-3. Nole leads on hard and grass, Rafa leads on grass.

2011 Nole was absolute peak Nole. I wouldn't read too much from that 7-0. 2013 Rafa vs 2011 Nole should be a great contest. I believe Nole will take AO and Rafa UO. It can go either way in FO and WC.

All in all I believe Nole has the edge, but it increasingly looks like Nole in Bo3s and Rafa in Bo5s. My point is all that trumps 7-0 streak which is just a stretch. When h2h is analyzed, which itself is lower on the rung of accomplishments, 7-0 is not more relevant than all those I mentioned above. In fact it is irrelevant. Rafa also has 5 match winning streaks against Roger, Novak and Andy individually. Doesn't matter really.

7. Streaks tell you things. Of course it has meaning. Does it have a value over overall accomplishments? I believe no.

8. The only streak I believe has a value and adds to greatness is CYGS. Only because its historically seen as an accomplishment. It was called the Grand Slam. Even then I do think it's slightly overplayed. That also includes Rafa's 10 straight years winning a Major. Is it easy? No. Does it tell you something? Yes. Does it adds to Rafa's greatness over Pete and Roger who made it only up to 8 years? No is my opinion. Of course Roger made the most out of his 8 years. In the grand scheme of things they all even out.

^It's often conveniently forgotten that Nadal beat Djokovic 5 straight times in 2008.

Mouth watering final, after the classics they had in 2014.

If both are full flowing, and carry the form they had late this season into next season, AO final will be hottest ticket around. Can you imagine, two four time AO champions battling each other, for the right for one of them to outright own the record....That has never happened in a slam before!

Mouth watering? Novak would carve him up.

 

[NatF]

Mouth watering final, after the classics they had in 2014.

If both are full flowing, and carry the form they had late this season into next season, AO final will be hottest ticket around. Can you imagine, two four time AO champions battling each other, for the right for one of them to outright own the record....That has never happened in a slam before!

Yep, that's what I'm hoping for! I had started to worry Federer wouldn't be able to recapture his great form in 2015 but his performance in the last match of Davis Cup has given me hope he'll be in top form come 2015. And we know Novak will be ready to reclaim the Oz.

Both should be confident and on opposite sides of the draw too. Fingers crossed no one plays the spoiler

 

[MichaelNadal]

Yep, that's what I'm hoping for! I had started to worry Federer wouldn't be able to recapture his great form in 2015 but his performance in the last match of Davis Cup has given me hope he'll be in top form come 2015. And we know Novak will be ready to reclaim the Oz.

Both should be confident and on opposite sides of the draw too. Fingers crossed no one plays the spoiler

 

[NatF]

I thought of him straight away as I wrote that...hopefully he's in Novak's side of the draw. Wonder what sort of form he'll be in when he returns...

 

[The_Order]

Mouth watering final, after the classics they had in 2014.

If both are full flowing, and carry the form they had late this season into next season, AO final will be hottest ticket around. Can you imagine, two four time AO champions battling each other, for the right for one of them to outright own the record....That has never happened in a slam before!

The script is certainly there, however, in reality, I think that Novak would beat him in max 4 sets.

Fed hasn't been able to take a set off Novak since AO went plexi cushion. To take 3 off him now would be a very tough task.

 

[Deleted member 77403]

The script is certainly there, however, in reality, I think that Novak would beat him in max 4 sets.

Fed hasn't been able to take a set off Novak since AO went plexi cushion. To take 3 off him now would be a very tough task.

Yeah, you are correct. I guess I like to build matches up for my own personal entertainment. But, the storyline is certainly there.

It will probably be straight sets win for Novak. I think he'll want to get him pretty badly after not getting the chance in London, when we were heading for the showdown.

And of course, we can't count out Mr Nadal either.

 

[Steve0904]

Mouth watering? Novak would carve him up.

I agree. On the AO court, Roger has little to no chance against Novak. Better than his chances against Rafa to be sure, but not by much.

 

[Coolio]

This guy.

 

[The_Order]

Yeah, you are correct. I guess I like to build matches up for my own personal entertainment. But, the storyline is certainly there.

It will probably be straight sets win for Novak. I think he'll want to get him pretty badly after not getting the chance in London, when we were heading for the showdown.

And of course, we can't count out Mr Nadal either.

Hard to see Nadal winning it tbh.

I wonder if the draw ends up so that Novak faces Stan in the sf and Fed v Rafa in the other sf or the other way around.

First case, I'd go with a Novak v Rafa final. Second case, I'd say Novak v Fed.

 

[Deleted member 688153]

This guy.

Hah, laughed more than I should!

 

[Chico]

Roger currently leads the most no. of titles in Open era at AO, WC, UO. That's 3/4 of the Slams. Impeccable!

But I would love to see Nole get a 5th AO. Every other Slam has 5+ times winners. AO should have one. Now it gives the false impression that AO is the toughest to dominate

The solution to that is Roger to win the AO in January

Nooooooooooo................. :-Chico

Why do you mention me here?

Anyway, Fed is not winning any more slams let alone AO While Novak will win at least two more AOs, so their shared record (not Feds as soeone said) will go to Novak. There is nothing Fed fanboys can do about it.

 

[Chico]

Mouth watering final, after the classics they had in 2014.

If both are full flowing, and carry the form they had late this season into next season, AO final will be hottest ticket around. Can you imagine, two four time AO champions battling each other, for the right for one of them to outright own the record....That has never happened in a slam before!

LOL at mouth watering Novak to win 6-2 6-3 6-2 or something like that, if Fed does not chicken out and run and hide from the final again like on WTF.

Anyway. Fed is not making the final so moot point.

 

[NatF]

Why do you mention me here?

Anyway, Fed is not winning any more slams let alone AO While Novak will win at least two more AOs, so their shared record (not Feds as soeone said) will go to Novak. There is nothing Fed fanboys can do about it.

We'll see. Djokovic is the heavy favorite but I still believe Fed can produce some magic

 

[Deleted member 77403]

Hard to see Nadal winning it tbh.

I wonder if the draw ends up so that Novak faces Stan in the sf and Fed v Rafa in the other sf or the other way around.

First case, I'd go with a Novak v Rafa final. Second case, I'd say Novak v Fed.

I don't know about that. Nadal is very consistent at slams outside of Wimbledon at the moment, and he is arguably the best best of five set player currently. Novak favorite, no doubt, but Rafa and Fed follow.

LOL at mouth watering Novak to win 6-2 6-3 6-2 or something like that, if Fed does not chicken out and run and hide from the final again like on WTF.

Anyway. Fed is not making the final so moot point.

I did put another post after that stating that it will probably be a straight set win for Novak. Nole is looking really hungry right now.

 

[moonballs]

Well Fedal are no longer the main problem for Novak at AO. With Cilic and Stan already broke out, plus Nishikori, Murray and Dimitov, the QF draws has never been so intriguing as it is going to be in 2015 AO.

 

[The-Champ]

LOL at mouth watering Novak to win 6-2 6-3 6-2 or something like that, if Fed does not chicken out and run and hide from the final again like on WTF.

Anyway. Fed is not making the final so moot point.

true. It's not like he had a sore throat or anything. It was just back problems..

 

[Chanwan]

Trust me I'm not one of those guys who gets caught up in hype, at least I try to not be. If all my friends go gaga about some movie I'm most likely not liking it when I watch it, and if my friends all diss a movie I might like it. It has got to do with the expectation set in our minds.

But in spite of all the hype and hoopla around Safin, I still am in awe of Safin every time I watch him. You got the word right there, "effortless". If "effortlessness" and "natural" are the keywords then I believe Safin and Federer are the two biggest talents we have had, at least in the last 15 years. Raw technique, smooth dynamics and efficiency to the core. The guy had good serve, FH, BH, volleys, not so bad defense. There are times I believe Safin was a bigger talent than Federer. Safin scores on BH and serve. Federer on FH and movement. If it's FH+BH then I give it to Safin. I'm not talking of the potency of the weapons, but just the effortlessness.

The guy needed Fedalovic like work ethics. A third guy who is in that bracket is Kei today, I believe. The guy is pure class.

I agree on pretty much everything except that I don't put Kei in quite the same stratosphere. He's got the effortless ball striking, sure, but he's too small to accomplish what Fed did and what Safin could have done. He can still contend for slams, contend for no. 1 and all that jazz, but he's a wee bit too short and too slenderly built to take full advantage of his god given talents imo

 

[kandamrgam]

Why do you mention me here?

Anyway, Fed is not winning any more slams let alone AO While Novak will win at least two more AOs, so their shared record (not Feds as soeone said) will go to Novak. There is nothing Fed fanboys can do about it.

I'm honouring your favourite smiley by your name itself

You don't even get that? Unbelievable :-chico

 

[kandamrgam]

I agree on pretty much everything except that I don't put Kei in quite the same stratosphere. He's got the effortless ball striking, sure, but he's too small to accomplish what Fed did and what Safin could have done. He can still contend for slams, contend for no. 1 and all that jazz, but he's a wee bit too short and too slenderly built to take full advantage of his god given talents imo

In whatever I have said I have given rat's *** to match winning potential and potency of weapons. My sole criterion was how easy it looks on eyes. In that respect Kei is a contender I believe.. A rung below Roger and Marat imo.

 

[Chanwan]

In whatever I have said I have given rat's *** to match winning potential and potency of weapons. My sole criterion was how easy it looks on eyes. In that respect Kei is a contender I believe.. A rung below Roger and Marat imo.

Ah, now I see. Yeah, true that.
(easy on the language though, I'm not Chico ;-) )

 

[NatF]

In whatever I have said I have given rat's *** to match winning potential and potency of weapons. My sole criterion was how easy it looks on eyes. In that respect Kei is a contender I believe.. A rung below Roger and Marat imo.

Speaking of easy on the eyes tennis. Watching this match atm - and this point just by.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EDfLkLJQ3GM#t=6752

Effortless power by the big Russian.

 

[kandamrgam]

Ah, now I see. Yeah, true that.
(easy on the language though, I'm not Chico ;-) )

Oh sorry. Cultural differences. I didnt write it offensively. And btw, I absolutely dont have any issues with Chico, I am one of them who considers him a sensible poster and not a troll.

 

[kandamrgam]

Speaking of easy on the eyes tennis. Watching this match atm - and this point just went happened.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=EDfLkLJQ3GM#t=6752

Effortless power by the big Russian.

Oh thanks for that. Andy's yelling "that was a good return" lol!

I do remember a few of Safin's early matches, especially 2005 AO. I think his height helped him to have that eye candy motion. But not everyone can do it, just saying.

 

[NatF]

Oh thanks for that. Andy's yelling "that was a good return" lol!

I do remember a few of Safin's early matches, especially 2005 AO. I think his height helped him to have that eye candy motion. But not everyone can do it, just saying.

Safin's strokes are pretty technically sound.

I do miss Andy's on and off court antics :lol:

A few errors in that match but they were hitting so big it's quite fun to watch.

 

[Chanwan]

Oh sorry. Cultural differences. I didnt write it offensively. And btw, I absolutely dont have any issues with Chico, I am one of them who considers him a sensible poster and not a troll.

It's fine, no worries.
And you do?? I gave him the benefit of the doubt for a loooooonng time, but after him repeatedly calling me a Novak-hater, when I'm anything but and after not being able to have anything close to resembling a discussion with him, I gave up and put him on ignore.