SpinToWin
Talk Tennis Guru
how old is he in dog years ?? i am like 80 i think in dog years
You're 10? Sounds about right
how old is he in dog years ?? i am like 80 i think in dog years
We have a lot players that are simillar age to Rogers,and they are playing some of the best tennis of their lives-Ferrer,Lopez,Benneteau,Karlovic (36),Robredo,Verdasco,Seppi...... So Federer is not so special for playing this good at his age
Well said OP. Age just a desperate excuse for fed fans, instead of just admitting Djoko is the superior player now. Nole has been overall more superior for last 4 years now.
You do realize he's beaten Djokovic the last 3 out of 5 times right? And big two is #1 and #2. Is Nadal #1 or #2? you might want to refresh the ATP website you have on your screen from 2011.
You might want to refresh your memory and understand that ranking means nothing for Federer when it comes to facing Nadal. Nadal is always going to be the favorite unless the conditions are tailor made for Fed's game (low bouncing , fast and indoors).
Never said Nadal wasn't the favorite. But to be part of the "Big 2" you'd have to have had a pretty good season and dominate the tour in the last 6 months or so. Federer has, Nadal hasn't.
Federer hasn't dominated anything.
His #2 ranking is the result of Nadal being out injured, not his dominance.
Oh Really?
Finals at wimbledon
Finals at Toronto
Win at Cincy
SF at USO
Win in Shanghai
SF in Paris
Finals in WTF
Win in Brisbane
4th round Aussie - the only bad result
Win in Dubai
Finals in IW.
That would be 4 finals, 4 wins, and 2 SF's.
Try again.
True. Fed is doing great for a guy nearing 40.
so? should Djokovic lose to a guy with 200 matches just because he played 500 matches more?
or you wanted to post something just for posting sake?
If Federer speaks his mind in a forest, but no one is there to hear him, is he still being arrogant?
Reaching a bunch of semis and and finals (and not winning a slam for 3 years) isn't exactly what I would call dominating. At this juncture the only dominant force is nole
and he barely qualifies as a dominant force, consecutive 1 slam seasons with a few masters.
he has been 1 slam loss away from being a Wozniacki or Rios, good players in their own right, but sheeesh
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!
Well it's not like he's been winning only one slam and going out early in the other three every year. He's had bloody tough comp, it's hard to have multi-slam seasons these days!
Not sure about that, but surely it will be enough for the genuses to deem the forest a weak era forest.
Stupid thread. Are the guys you mentioned even in the top 5? Are those guys winning slams? Are those guys reaching slam finals? Are those guys winning masters?
Federer is still playing well. But losses like the Seppi one at the AO are clear confirmation that age is relevant.
If Djokovic was 33 and Federer 27, Nole would be losing more often to Federer than the other way around. And then we would hear all Djokovic fans claiming the same thing, that Djokovic is 33 and past his prime. It's easy for them when their favorite player is still in his prime and not that old
Are you serious ? 2012-14 losses to Murray, Nishikori and Stan are LOL for someone vying to be an all time great , more so coming at his prime.
All people are trying to say is that Djokovic is more vulnerable than Federer or Nadal at their best. Which is true.Yes, I am serious. Ok, 2014 was definitely full of missed opportunities but in 2012 he had to face peak Lendlised Murray(no sure what you think is so LOL about him), Nadal playing some of his greatest ever clay court tennis and Fed playing prime level tennis at Wimbledon. And in 2013 he was unlucky to face a recharged Nadal who was coming off a seven month break from the tour and raring to go. Those are tough circumstances whichever way you look at it.
All people are trying to say is that Djokovic is more vulnerable than Federer or Nadal at their best. Which is true.
I mean, losing to Federer or Nadal is forgivable, but Murray (or especially Nishikori) is unexplainable.
Imagine if Federer lost to a player like Lleyton Hewitt or Andy Roddick not once, but twice in a Grand Slam final. It's kind of the same thing.
I am a "Murray fan".I just don't see why, especially on grass. And I doubt batz, Mainad and other Murray fans will agree with you either.
I am a "Murray fan".
You're still making out like Djokovic was expected to lose when he walked out onto the court against Murray, when this is not true, even at Wimbledon. I remember before the match against Murray, Djokovic fans were saying he'd get "revenge" against him for the US Open loss; and Murray put him on his arse. It just shows how good Djokovic is relative to Federer or Nadal, who certainly would have put up more of a fight.
I never said he should be ashamed of it, Murray is a great player. But relative to the standards Nadal and morso Federer have set, it's a bad loss no matter which way you shape it.Not sure why you keep bringing up Federer and Nadal but yeah, Djokovic might have been expected to win those two slam finals. However, the fact that he didn't still doesn't mean it's something for him to feel ashamed of. It's not like he lost to a journeyman who'd never been in a slam final before.
I just don't see why, especially on grass. And I doubt batz, Mainad and other Murray fans will agree with you either.
Not sure why you keep bringing up Federer and Nadal but yeah, Djokovic might have been expected to win those two slam finals. However, the fact that he didn't still doesn't mean it's something for him to feel ashamed of. It's not like he lost to a journeyman who'd never been in a slam final before.
To give you an analogy, it is like Fed losing twice in major finals to Roddick.
Which wouldn't have been anything to feel ashamed about either. Roddick was an excellent player.
You pass of 2 majors as something minor. Having won 6 matches and having a beatable opponent, you are missing something that happens really really rare.
Those are the margins that ultimately separate the legends from the greats.
Do you want Novak to be like McEnroe/Agassi or at the level of Borg ?
I'm not passing them off as anything. All I'm trying to say is that Murray is a excellent player who'd already been to the finals of both USO and Wimbledon before he beat Djokovic so it's not like his wins came out of nowhere. He'd already shown what he was capable of and lest we forget that he's also beaten Nadal, who undoubtably is a legend of the game, twice in grand slams also.
Not in major finals.
Greats bring in an extra gear in the finals. Novak missed the boat big time, more so at the USO. Keep consoling yourself , but it was a big missed opportunity.
I don't care if they weren't in finals - the fact remains that Nadal lost twice to Murray in majors just as Djokovic has.
And I'm not consoling myself either. Not sure why you're trying to wind me up when all I'm doing is expressing my opinion.![]()
But that is a big difference. Being able to play your best in a final and win the title is what counts a lot more. Djokovic's final record is 8-7 (wins vs losses) and Nadal's is 14-6. (Fed's is 17-8 )
Don't get defensive about it. Stats tell the story.
Not being defensive in the slightest, just giving my opinion. I know what Djokovic's slam final record is so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up(or Fedal's for that matter). How does it pertain to what tennisaddict and I were discussing?![]()
I'm starting to think that directly comparing Fedal's achievements to Djokovic's doesn't really help anything anyway.
It doesn't tell us anything we don't already know (i.e. that Fedal are Tier 1 and Djokovic isn't, at least yet).
Let's see how it looks in 2-3 years.
Not being defensive in the slightest, just giving my opinion. I know what Djokovic's slam final record is so I'm not sure why you felt the need to bring it up(or Fedal's for that matter). How does it pertain to what tennisaddict and I were discussing?![]()
Because you said you don't care if Murray's wins vs Nadal were in finals or not but there is a difference between Nadal's losses to Murray in QF or SF matches vs Djokovic's losses to Murray in two finals. When you are in a QF or SF match you can't win the title so the stakes are lower. Winning the title is all that matters and how you perform in a final is more important. You can't understand that logic?![]()
I remain skeptical. Look at when it was written: September 12, 2013, in Fed's worst year.A critical factor which many people might not think of: it's not the age which matters; rather, it's the # of matches played that wears on the body more.
Check out this article if you're still skeptical:
http://espn.go.com/tennis/story/_/id/9664642/tennis-how-old-roger-federer-really
Agassi's game wasn't that bad on the body. It's his genetics that ruined him I feel. He was always going to have issues with his back in his mid 30's. His playing style allowed him to have much longevity, as he didn't run down balls that often and dictated from the baseline.I remain skeptical. Look at when it was written: September 12, 2013, in Fed's worst year.
If you take all of this seriously Fed should not have reached #2 again in 2014.
I think playing style is a bigger factor. Agassi and Connors both played a game that was brutal on the body. Connors was on a cane until he got his hip replaced.
JMac played with a very fluid, easy style, and he is still in superb condition for his age.