N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Things don't work like that. Ok answer me one question , many people throw clay specialist term but no body says hardcourt specialist term, why?
Something I would like to see people realize: Slam wins should not be everything
- Thread starter mattosgrant
- Start date
He hasn't had it easy as he spent a large part of his career playing two goats in their prime. Maybe they aren't peak right now but he has earned everyone of his slams by not having easy outs in finals. One could argue that his career was much tougher as he doesn't have a pet event and also that he started against the best in their prime. And also his peak did not start until 2011 more or less. 2009 was horrible for him.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
He has had a pet event -- The Australian Open..
Completely bollocks peak this or that you have no idea what you are talking about how can someone over 30 be in their prime
Not really as everyone is good on this surface compared to clay. Djokovic is just that much better than the rest.
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Nope, it's his pet event. Nobody is as good as him on slow HC, same as nobody is as good as Nadal on clay.
abmk
Bionic Poster
I said he was playing close to prime level tennis in that summer. Its possible in short stretches, especially if earlier part of career hasn't been that intense on the body (like for agassi )
Just like fed at wimbledon?
abmk
Bionic Poster
1. in the QF vs simon and SF vs murray, yeah ...not in the final ..
2. federer has had a full career at peak unlike agassi who was start-stop-start ..
No no he is the best like you said. It's just that it is most players' best surface too. Many guys struggle on clay. So i agree with you it is much harder to be the best on hc than on clay
Well that had something to do with the opponent too. Also in his prime Andy had his number so probably almost career best form going into final no?
abmk
Bionic Poster
nope, at his prime, federer owned murray in big matches ( USO 08, AO 10 -- both straight-set wins)
6 and 2 murray at the start of his career against peak fed suggests otherwise. As we know Andy struggles in big finals mentally so the other matches are a better indication
Anyone that knows tennis knows that
abmk
Bionic Poster
that was prime fed, but not peak -- at a stage when federer cared less about Bo3 and focussed on Bo5 ...his record and play in Bo5 vas Bo#3 in general from 2008-2010 AO clearly reflect that ...
Yeah he only cared about best of 5 thats why he has 80 odd career titles. Bravo
Just comparing what you were saying about agassi in 04. The two guys performances were not dissimilar during the year. Since Fed is undoubtedly the superior player he must be a tougher out than Andre
abmk
Bionic Poster
I said at that stage of his career ( from 2008 to AO 2010 ) or is too difficult to read that ?
he didn't make it to a single HC final until USO in 08
results in slams :
2008 : SF, F, F, W
2009 : F, W, W, F
2010 AO : W
total other titles : 3 in 2008, 2 in 2009 ...total of 5 other titles ...
abmk
Bionic Poster
not necessarily ...it depends on the match ....more unpredictable as the player is older ...
Doesn't it hurt being wrong all the time. Fed played worse in the final because Novak is in his head now not because he is old. Same with Murray in finals against Fed, its not form it is mental
abmk
Bionic Poster
Novak is in his head now because federer is old and federer can't keep up with him physically , duh ..
Federer was the only one close to beating Novak in slams in 11 ( beat him RG and nearly at the USO ) ....
you are turning out to be another clueless member of the pro-Novak brigade ...
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
No, he just isn't as good as Nadal is on clay. It's really that simple..
Fed is playing pretty good tennis still judging by his record against everyone else. Nadal was in his had too. He has had problems in the past with playing his best against guys of similar ability. The pressure gets to him a little
abmk
Bionic Poster
umm, 2011 says completely otherwise ...did you completely miss that ?
nadal case is entirely different -- in major part due to matchup ..
again , you are showing yourself to be another hypocritical member of the djokovic brigade ...
I never said that nobody is as good as Nadal on clay that is obvious. You really do struggle sometimes no? It is harder to be the best of HC because there are more guys who are better on HC than clay. It is easier if clay is your best surface to be the best on it as more guys struggle on it. Did i type slowly enough for you?
Why hypocritical? Please use it in a sentence correctly
abmk
Bionic Poster
hypocritical ...... because you are ignoring 2011 - when federer was the only one who came close to beating Novak in a slam (actually beat him once and had MPs in another ) and you bring up 33-34 year old federer's performances to say he has problems when playing vs guys of similar ability ? D for delusional
That's fine but that was a pretty peak fed. As we all know players peak much later these days. And pre peak djokovic so Wow that was a pretty impressive fro. Novak. Much better than playing a 30 something andre
Probably same reason why andre didn't retire earlier
abmk
Bionic Poster
are you high ? federer's peak was from 2004-07, prime till AO 10 ..
pre-peak djokovic in 11 ? you are delusional beyond measure.......
abmk
Bionic Poster
no, that's because he had wasted part of his younger career. he was more focussed later on ...
MichaelNadal
Bionic Poster
Damn you Rafa for letting the force lose it's balance.
Well those are really not a players prime years you should know better if you follow sports in general
His body was a mess physically much worse than fed us now. He missed parts of his career but not injuries. He didn't retire because he could still win same with fed
abmk
Bionic Poster
prime years vary from sport to sport.
I know what I said is true because I follow tennis ...not sure what you've been following if you think 2011 was pre-prime djokovic
joekapa
Legend
Slams mean something, but not as much as people think. This "the greater the slams, the greater the GOAT status", is flawed.
And the reason is simple. Borg finished his career with 11 slam titles. He acheived 11 slams without playing the Australian Open. The great players of the 70's and 80's hardly ever played the AO. That's why you see second/third tier players winning the AO in the 70's and 80's. It was basically Australian players who played the AO back then. In today's terms it was on par with playing a 500 point tournament.
Now imagine if Borg played the AO. He would of racked up a further 5-6 slams in his slam count.
Same with Mcenroe. He played the AO twice in his career, from what I remember.
That's why slam counts don't really show who the GOAT is. Other factors must go into it as well.
And the reason is simple. Borg finished his career with 11 slam titles. He acheived 11 slams without playing the Australian Open. The great players of the 70's and 80's hardly ever played the AO. That's why you see second/third tier players winning the AO in the 70's and 80's. It was basically Australian players who played the AO back then. In today's terms it was on par with playing a 500 point tournament.
Now imagine if Borg played the AO. He would of racked up a further 5-6 slams in his slam count.
Same with Mcenroe. He played the AO twice in his career, from what I remember.
That's why slam counts don't really show who the GOAT is. Other factors must go into it as well.
I don't think you have followed it in a while. If you think Fed was over the hill in 2011
D
Deleted member 307496
Guest
Then why do players who have clay as their preferred surface struggle to achieve big things then?
In today's game the level of competition matters very little considering there is none. Does that make sense to you yet?
Last edited by a moderator:
CremoCream
Rookie
Sorry for the late response. Did you even watch the match? Yes djokovic choked the first set away, he also choked the second set away. The first set he should have won, and having a 4-1 lead in the second set.... and pushing fed to deuce before fed held, djokovic was applying pressure there as well. Then fed got a 0-40 lead on djokovics serve? Really? Even John Mcenroe was saying during the match that Djokovic was the one pushing Fed Around (something like that). He should have won the first, and he should have won the second. That's controlling the match. Being in position to win and making those opportunities for yourself. Federer was coming back in each set (except for the third) largely due to djokovics mental break down. Federer winning the first and second set had alot to do with him taking advantage of the opportunities that djokovic was giving him....
All my comments have been fair to federer, I haven't disparaged his winnings or criticized him at all. I've stated the truth about a match, that if you watched, you would know djokovic was dictating. That doesn't take anything away from Federer as it does give djokovic a bit of credit. Yet you seem to be trying to push the same cliche argument that "really old federer" was pushing a prime djokovic. Let's get something straight, 30 is not old for tennis players anymore. With new technologies players can stay fit well into their mid 30s. Feds play was all time great in the 2011 SF like it was in the 2011 French Open Semi-Final. Players out of their prime can still have peak matches, and Fed did that alot in 2011 against djokovic. The first two sets in 2011 SF were really close, and the next two Djokovic took handily. That wasn't Federer choking. That was Federer being outplayed the following two sets. Than the level was higher for Fed in the fifth than it was for djokovic. Than the "shot" or "return" was truck by djokovic. This is one of clutchest plays I've seen in Tennis Ever. That play is what made Federer "choke." He was in disbelieve, noted by the way he reacted to that "play" in the press conference. So give credit were credit is due. Like you do when Federer beat a 30 year old sampras at Wimbledon who was wayyymoree out of his prime than Fed was when djokovic beat him in 2010 and 2011. And 2010 djokovic was not prime djokovic...
Last edited:
Man thank christ I thought I was the only one to survive the zombie apocalypse.
CremoCream
Rookie
Yeah man. 20 years later from now djokovic haters and/or fed fans are going to rewrite history and say that a disabled Federer with a broken back and shot knees somehow pushed a prime djokovic at the 2011 USO. The delusions some people believe to elevate their favorite players.
For me the tennis of that year was unreal also some of the Djokovic Nadal i think 2009 was awesome. And to say that an era goes from the strongest to the weakest with the same guys playing doesnt make sense. I think it is weaker but weakest come on. I went to a couple of australian open finals. Safin Johansson and agassi clement honestly if this is weaker I'll top myself
CremoCream
Rookie
lmaooooo don't do it don't do it!!!! but in all seriousness, no way in hell the strength of field is at an all time low right now. I honestly think maybe due to players being out of form or injured (Potro) in 2010 made it "weaker", yet the same could be said about 2009 with Nadal injuries, or 2014. Weakness and Strength of field is subjective cause it's usually attributed to the eye test. When people have a bias in favor of their player, like some of these fed fans, they only see what they want to see.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
I don't understand your question.
kevaninho
Hall of Fame
Listen. The grand slams are on different surfaces for that reason. The WTF is supposed to be the top 8 players battling for a season ending title, which I agree does look good on a players resume.
But considering over the years tennis has had a lot of guys who were specialists on one surface, it kind of devalues the whole principle of a season ending 'best of the best', when its played on a surface that certain players will never be able to win, and who certain other players will always be favourite.
Lets be honest, no one other than Roger or Novak were ever winning it this year. It needs a shake up.
Getting back to the topic how do you guys rate a year end number 1 to a single slam win. Many one slam wonders much less year end number ones. Or year end number 1 compared to wtf. Personally year end no 1 much higher for me as wtfs can be a mixed back and half the guys show up just for the money.
5555
Hall of Fame
Borg was not good at scheduling. For example, in 1977 he skipped French Open.
This is an insult. I've reported you.
People who lose arguments resort to insults.
N
Navdeep Srivastava
Guest
Ok how many clay couter did Rafa defeated, Ferrer, Puerta and they are good enough as Berdych on hardcourt or grass. In remaining finals he is defeating Fed and Novak who are known for their hardcourt peak and in case of Fed grass also.
Now look who Fed defeated for first hardcourt slam Hewitt, Nalbandian( better hardcourter incompare to Ferrer and Puerta as clay courter) and Safin.
Now Fed second hardcourt slam Agassi, Baghdatis( again better than Puerta) and Hewitt.
Lost to peak Safin in AO 05, now for third hardcourt slam defeated Agassi, Nalbandian and Hewitt. I can go on and on.
Rafa never defeated good forget about great claycourter, he defeated hardcourter on clay.
When 3 slam surface were grass, there were more grass courters , S& v player, when 2 slam surface became hardcourt including 6 masters and wtf surface also then there are more hardcourter, if there were more clay surface, like 2 slam , 6 master and wtf , then there would have been more clay courters and Rafa should have faced genuine tough clay specialist not any hardcourt player in clay tournament.
Rafa was not going to win 20+ slam as some of his fans thinks if tour were dominated by clay courts.
Similar threads
- Poll
