Discussion in 'Former Pro Player Talk' started by tennissportsrog, Sep 2, 2012.
Yes, zagor, you have read rightly.
abmk, Your arrogance is world class.
Federer could do anything on a tennis court. It's just a pity that he did not show it too often against top players, especially within of the last three years.
Hardly a GOAT candidate...
Yep, Federer's record against the top players is so bad...
NatF, Yes Roger's record against the top players is not great since Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have reached their peak.
He has a leading h2h with Djokovic, leads Nadal off clay and has a slightly negative head to head with Murray who's peak was actually 2012, Federer won 3 of their 5 meetings in 2012.
Federer has also declined since they got better. The fact you're too thick headed to accept that their better head to heads are also contributed to by Federer's marked decline doesn't help your cause.
Murray reached his peak only in the second half of 2012.
Federer declines at 29? A bit too early for a GOAT candidate....
Murray reached his peak when it works for your argument? You're a biased old fool. Put Rosewall at 29 in this era and he'd be squashed by the likes of Djokovic, Murray and Nadal. At the top of the game even a small decline can mean the difference between winning close matches and losing them.
Length of a career is only one criterion for a GOAT anyway. Besides that Federer is still competed and is currently holding Wimbledon, you know, the most prestigious tennis trophy of them all? The one Rosewall never won...
Oh my, isn't that convenient.
So he wasn't at his peak when Fed beat him in Wimbledon final but was at his peak 2 weeks later in the Olympics final, how very interesting.
Tell me, is Murray's peak level much better than Fed's as well? I personally think he should rank higher than Fed on your official peak play + longevity list now, time to update it.
I'd put Benneteau on that list too
Murraya and Del Potro being clearly inferior to Gerulatis and Tanner as far as record has kept on proving.I´d say their are like Mecir and Korda.
actually he has on quite a few occasions even though he was past his best since AO 2010 ...
you just didn't watch AO 2010 F, RG 2011 SF, wimbledon 2012 SF & F, YEC 2010, YEC 2011 RR vs nadal, cincy 2012 final vs djoker, IW 2012 vs nadal etc etc ......
you know what, I've been too polite with you considering your blatant dumbness ...............
you have no effin' clue about how good federer is ...saying federer doesn't have touch is like saying rosewall sucked at volleying or laver's BH sucked .... that's how dumb it is ......
here's a start :
a lesson in drop shots :
oh and I assure you, he's shown enormous no of touch shots throughout his career ...
for now...i think both end up multiple slam winners, especially confident in Muray achieving that
The fool says: Murray reached his peak after Wimbledon. For several years before he was an "almost champion". Now he can compete with any player in the world.
The Rosewall not winning W. argument lets me wonder who of us is a fool...
I knew you wouldn´t be able to get over that.You shouldn´t read things for adults.
lol, wut ?
delpo won the USO beating fed/nadal back to back ....
murray's record is so much superior to gerulatis or tanner ( who only won one major in enormously weakened AO fields ) ........its a no contest ....
mecir was highly talented, but lacked the mental strength to win a major ....
zagor, Murray overcame his psychologic weakness after W. Or do you think that Federer declined within of two weeks???
They try to hijack the post and cannot stand losing.Like Federer himself ( and unless Laver or Rosewall) they are bitter losers ( when they don´t break into tears like their icon).Look at Nadalqueen reactions...
no, you clueless, he was very good mentally in both AO 2012 SF where he pushed novak to 5 sets and in the wimbledon final as well .... just that novak & federer were better than him .....( also, he was able to close down tsonga who was going great guns in the 3rd & 4th set in 4 sets in the wimbledon SF when it looked like it was going to 5 )
He competed with Federer at Wimbledon, he just lost. I guess you don't peak until you beat Federer on a big stage?
You're still the fool. Federer has no touch? lol. Atleast try and pretend like you've watched some modern tennis. He didn't win the biggest prize in the sport, am I wrong? Because I'd only be a fool if I was wrong...
Gerulaitis won the WCT finals, a major.Del Potro and Murray no.
Tanner took Borg to five sets at the Wimbledon Final.And won Melbourne devastating legendary Guillermo Vilas in the final.
Not the same argument, in this post you're talking about level of performance in specific matches and in the one I responded previously you were talking about a peak period in player's career.
Do I think Fed played better in Wimbledon final than in Olympics final? Sure but I never claimed (or thought at any moment) that Fed was at his peak in 2012 even after he won Wimbledon (a player like Fed doesn't need to be at his peak to contend for/win slams) so I'm not choosing a specific, narrow window of time to base my argument on.
To give you another example, I wouldn't say Fed was at his peak in 2005 but not at AO and FO (or YEC that year), he was at his peak but still lost, just like he was past his peak in 2012 but still managed to win Wimbledon.
However your argument is that Murray's peak didn't start in the year 2012, that Murray was not at his peak before 2012 Wimbledon but suddenly entered that stage of his career 2 weeks later.
eh, while I do think pc1 manages to hide the fact that he doesn't like federer much very well, I don't think he's anywhere near as ignorant as these 2 and in fact, can't help but grudgingly admire federer at times, but these two fellas BobbyOne & kiki are on a different stratosphere ....
I think Murray losing Wimbledon final to a mediocre grasscourter (with no touch and volleys) like Fed undeniably proves he couldn't have possibly been at his peak at that point of time, he still had to wait for 2 whole more weeks.
Limphitter was alright too, he gave fair perspective on modern era players
You're talking about a merely different package/facade/approach but underneath all that I don't think his opinion on Federer differs very much at all.
what the hell are you on about ?
murray won the USO in 2012 defeating djokovic
delpo won the USO in 2009 defeating nadal and federer back to back
when gerulaitis won the WCT in 78, connors wasn't there, borg withdrew before the semi vs gerulatis ...
definitely not a major in 78 .... not even remotely close
legendary vilas who couldn't make it past the QF at wimbledon ... sure :roll: ( his only "great" grass-court achievement was the Masters in 74 )
yeah, tanner played very well in wimbledon 1979 final ... so did murray in wimbledon 2012 final or AO 2012 SF or AO 2010 QF or USO 2008 SF ...so did delpo in 2009 FO semi vs fed, 4R match vs nadal in wimbledon 2011 ....so ?
yeah, he gave some strange opinions at times , but atleast he was near the vicinity of reality many times ....
You are much smarter than abmk, who loves to talk without saying anything in concretion.
still see a stark difference , he knows much more about federer than these 2 do ... he knows that he can't put fed down too much ...he can't ....a combination of both knowledge as well as difference in approach , not just a difference in approach ....
Vitas and Roscoe also reached bunch of semis and quarters sinc eyou value it so highly.In case you don´t know, which i think so since you are clueless and cannot smell anything winding before 2000´s, let me recall you that the 77 semi at W between Borg and Gerulaitis is considered by many the best ever tennis match.Vitas also lost a classical 5 set match at the Masters (Lendl)
Murray and Del Po have 1 major and Vitas has 2.Maybe in the future they equalize or overcome him, not now...without mentioning that they played the golden era with the best players at their prime, and that is a plus.Murray playes injuried Nadal and out of peak Federer.OK he plays Djokovic but it is not enough to put him in the same breath as those legends yet
I say many things based on reality .... just that the reality is too tough for you to accept most of the times ....
Yeah, Federer only won 78% of net points with his poor touch and pitiful volley's.
No touch at all...
BobbyOne would probably introduce Federer as the guy with the decent forehand.
Sure kiki. I still think you could help out a lot of kids by giving them before and after scans of your brain. They need to be aware of what happens to people who fall off the wagon.
I'm sure everyone is sorry to spoil your party with reason. It really is a nasty business.
vitas has zero "majors" - AO wasn't a 'true' major in 77 .... FO, wimbledon , USO & the masters were the best 4 events in 77
WCT wasn't close to one in 78 either with defending champ connors not playing and borg withdrawing from the semi with an injury ......
as far as the 77 wimbledon SF goes, yes, it was a classic .... so was the AO 2009 SF b/w nadal and verdasco & verdasco wasn't near the player that gerulaitis was ... same case for the AO 2003 QF roddick & el ayanoui match ... el ayanoui was nowhere near the player that vitas overall was ( in part due to major injuries ), but in this match, his all-court play was downright sick ....
btw here's a mention I made of that 77 SF myself months before :
Best non-final match of the open era :
gerulaitis was a very good all around player, but lacked that one special weapon to hurt either borg/connors ....
ironical that for tanner, you didn't mention him winning over borg in 79 USO & over connors in wimbldon 76 ( this was after connors had demolished him the previous year in one of the finest displays of returning )
abmk, this is priceless...
There is no shame in crying, albeit I cannot imagine Laver doing that in such dramatic Hollywood way as Federer...but, listen, he cried again during the Olimpics...what´s wrong with him? shouldn´t he be playing the WTA?
I'm not surprised at your reaction, given you are near clueless about modern day tennis ...
google is your friend ......both these matches were tennis at its finest .....
oh and both those matches are on youtube .....you can watch and decide for yourself ....
also funny how you avoided replying to the rest of my post ........ what's the matter ? no reply to the facts ? :lol:
dude the Nadal-Verdasco match was insane! Lots of quality winners in that match actually.
Roddick-El Aynaoui is one of the best pre-final grand slam matches ever, ever! Very big match, big respect between the both, lots of heart shown.
Bertolucci vs Nastase in 78 or Connors vs Pernfors in 87, Connors vs Gomez in 81, look at them.
BTW, what´s Aynaoui best ever rank?
Sexism too, kiki?
You've got it all.
didn't I already say
"el ayanoui was nowhere near the player that vitas overall was"
doesn't change that it was absolutely brilliant all-court play from him in that AO 2003 QF ....
connors vs pernfors was mainly about connors' heart, the quality of play wasn't that high ....
haven't seen the other 2 matches ....
Djokovic has already matched or surpassed all of Becker's stats and he is only 25. Becker has only the same # of majors, also didnt win the career slam, doesnt have a record at any slam as good as Djokovic's at the Australian Open doesnt have a good record at the French Open as Djokovic, doesnt even have as good a record at the U.S Open. Becker never ended a year ranked #1. It really isnt any contest at this point, and the gap will only continue to widen. As for by surface in playing ability:
Slow hard courts: Djokovic >>>> Becker
Fast hard courts: Djokovic >>>> Becker
Grass: Becker >>> Djokovic
Carpet: Not much to go by but still Becker > Djokovic
Clay: Djokovic >>>> Becker
Speaking of weaknesses, do you know undersized Rosewall would struggled immensely in the modern era? He lacks major weapons...no serve, fh and overall the power game that are the necessities in a highly demanding competition. Even PC1 finally conceded that the right height/size does have an edge in modern tennis. Federer holds the record for the most slams and endless list of records are the testament of his strength. I advise you not to mention about player's weaknesses next time because it only makes your idol(roswall) looks worse.
How many time do I have to correct you that Rosewall 23 majors are NOT the modern slams. He won 15 pro majors with 8-14 players which is equivalent to the modern WTF at best. And his 4 of 8 slams came from amateurs, which you guys have deeply devalue Emerson 12 slams. Federer 17 slams is the benchmark(before it was Pete's 14), it's the record that all players today look up to, a holy grail of tennis. Capiche?
Bobby you cannot call yourself a historian, or even a tennis fan or enthusiast, if you don't seriously consider Fed to be a GOAT contender.
Indeed, the greatest player of the modern game is apparently a nobody compared to the giants of 50 years ago and their split field records. Bobby is a joke. Tired of sugarcoating it.
...not to mention Philipoussis,Tsonga,Ferrer,Henman,Davidhof,Nalbandian,Coria,Ferrero and all those legendary players of that " strong era"...Bobbyone is too generous.
was that the intentional choice of word lol?
No...but it works quite well now that you mention it lol.
So you count 2 Hc so to highlight Djokovic?
Carpet: Becker would concede two or three points per set.If it was golden carpet not current clay, like grass is another kinda clay in this era.
ha ha, good one !
Separate names with a comma.