Total win/loss records of top 10-20 players and more: 2004- 2014

[Deleted member 307496]

Roddick relevant at Wimbledon in 05? Please. He was rubbish compared to 04. Hewitt was also a bit underdone heading into it.

No way would 35 year old Agassi reach a US Open final from 08-11, absolutely no way he's getting through prime Nadal, Novak and/or Federer. He nearly lost to freakin Ginepri come on.

Also, don't pretend Nalbandian was tough in the 05 US Quarter Final. He was WELL below his best. Really, Hewitt's the only guy that made it a bit difficult for Fed.

Roddick made the final, "weak draw" or not. And that means he was relevant. Hewitt made the SF and took Federer to a tiebreak. He also wasn't bageled like the year before.

Irrelevant about Agassi.. I was talking about Federer's road to the final.

Nalbandian bageled Gonzalez on his way to the QF, and 2005 wasn't a bad year for that guy either. He made the WTF as an alternate I believe. He also dropped a couple of sets to journeymen but apart from that he was solid. Not a bad QF opponent at all..

Obviously Hewitt was a hard opponent, and Agassi wasn't half bad in the final either. He stepped it up a bit compared to his SF match.

 

[NatF]

Roddick relevant at Wimbledon in 05? Please. He was rubbish compared to 04. Hewitt was also a bit underdone heading into it.

No way would 35 year old Agassi reach a US Open final from 08-11, absolutely no way he's getting through prime Nadal, Novak and/or Federer. He nearly lost to freakin Ginepri come on.

Also, don't pretend Nalbandian was tough in the 05 US Quarter Final. He was WELL below his best. Really, Hewitt's the only guy that made it a bit difficult for Fed.

Roddick was not rubbish compared to 04 overall at Wimbledon. He beat Grosjean and Johansson both of whom were playing well - Johansson actually had the highest ratio of winners to errors across the whole tournament, even higher than Federer.

And 35 year old Agassi would have plenty of chances to beat those guys playing like he did in the QF. The SF he didn't play as well, probably tried to pace himself.

 

[torpantennis]

Ridiculous discussion. Real weak years are 2013-2014. Just deal with it!

 

[NatF]

Ridiculous discussion. Real weak years are 2013-2014. Just deal with it!

**** off then if you're so set on your opinions

 

[The_Order]

Djokovic and Nadal were in their prime in 2007...

Djokovic just started reaching it, Nadal wasn't quite there on HC.

Murray wouldn't mop up the field like Nadal, Djokovic or Federer have.

Never said he would. You left him out to try and pump up the guys from the other era, but while Murray wasn't as dominant as Nadal, Federer and Djokovic, he was still a significantly tough opponent.

It would be quite a lot like 2004-2005 without them.. That's the point.

Nope, it just shows how weak the period is outside of 2 or 3 guys.

So, take away Nadal and Novak and it would be quite a lot like 04 and 05. But then you go on to say outside Nadal and Novak it was a weak period.

This basically means you think 04-05 was a weak period.

You've contradicted yourself there, unless you really believe that...

Roddick made the final, "weak draw" or not. And that means he was relevant. Hewitt made the SF and took Federer to a tiebreak. He also wasn't bageled like the year before.

Roddick's performance in the final was irrelevant to say the least. The guy lost before he even stepped onto the court. Hewitt was a bit better than 04 imo, but still he was underdone heading into it and not much of a threat anyway.

Irrelevant about Agassi.. I was talking about Federer's road to the final.

No, it's not irrelevant at all. We are looking at the field here, not just Federer's draw.

Nalbandian bageled Gonzalez on his way to the QF, and 2005 wasn't a bad year for that guy either. He made the WTF as an alternate I believe. He also dropped a couple of sets to journeymen but apart from that he was solid. Not a bad QF opponent at all..

Go watch that match again and tell me he wasn't a bad qf opponent.

Obviously Hewitt was a hard opponent, and Agassi wasn't half bad in the final either. He stepped it up a bit compared to his SF match.

Yeah and? This indicates a tough year?

A guy finishes #3 with only 2 top ten victories? Australian Open champion does a vanishing act? Teenage Nadal is mopping up Masters on clay AND HC? 35 year old cripple in a major final which would never happen from 08-11?

Yeah, very tough year...

 

[The_Order]

Roddick was not rubbish compared to 04 overall at Wimbledon. He beat Grosjean and Johansson both of whom were playing well - Johansson actually had the highest ratio of winners to errors across the whole tournament, even higher than Federer.

Go and watch Roddick play in the 04 final. Then go and watch 05. If you don't think 05 was rubbish compared to 04 then you're crazy.

And 35 year old Agassi would have plenty of chances to beat those guys playing like he did in the QF. The SF he didn't play as well, probably tried to pace himself.

Rubbish. No way would 35 year old Andre beat the likes of prime Nadal, Novak and Federer at the US Open to reach the final. You're out of your mind and trying too hard to pump up Federer's era because you can't handle the truth.

To get to the 08 US Open final, 35 year old Andre would've had to beat the combination of:

Murray + Nadal

or

Djokovic + Federer

NOT HAPPENING, LOL no matter how hard you try to convince everyone, he barely got past Blake.

US09:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Del Potro

again, not happening.

US10:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal

He's not getting through Novak and Federer mate and no way does he beat Nadal in 2010 US Open form.

US11:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Murray

Again, not happening.

There's no way, maybe he could beat one of them, but not both to reach the final.

But when you say could 35 year old Andre beat:

Blake + Ginepri

LOL yeah of course, but even with that, he barely scraped through, but yeah, we'll all believe he's going to knock off 2 members of the big 4. Get real.

 

[NatF]

Go and watch Roddick play in the 04 final. Then go and watch 05. If you don't think 05 was rubbish compared to 04 then you're crazy.

I meant overall not the final, 04 was way better in the final.

Rubbish. No way would 35 year old Andre beat the likes of prime Nadal, Novak and Federer at the US Open to reach the final. You're out of your mind and trying too hard to pump up Federer's era because you can't handle the truth.

To get to the 08 US Open final, 35 year old Andre would've had to beat the combination of:

Murray + Nadal

or

Djokovic + Federer

NOT HAPPENING, LOL no matter how hard you try to convince everyone, he barely got past Blake.

US09:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Del Potro

again, not happening.

US10:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal

He's not getting through Novak and Federer mate and no way does he beat Nadal in 2010 US Open form.

US11:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Murray

Again, not happening.

There's no way, maybe he could beat one of them, but not both to reach the final.

But when you say could 35 year old Andre beat:

Blake + Ginepri

LOL yeah of course, but even with that, he barely scraped through, but yeah, we'll all believe he's going to knock off 2 members of the big 4. Get real.

He could beat one of them is what I was saying, I believe he could make a final. More than that no - but then he was beaten in 4 by Federer anyway.

 

[mike danny]

Go and watch Roddick play in the 04 final. Then go and watch 05. If you don't think 05 was rubbish compared to 04 then you're crazy.




Rubbish. No way would 35 year old Andre beat the likes of prime Nadal, Novak and Federer at the US Open to reach the final. You're out of your mind and trying too hard to pump up Federer's era because you can't handle the truth.

To get to the 08 US Open final, 35 year old Andre would've had to beat the combination of:

Murray + Nadal

or

Djokovic + Federer

NOT HAPPENING, LOL no matter how hard you try to convince everyone, he barely got past Blake.

US09:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Del Potro

again, not happening.

US10:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal

He's not getting through Novak and Federer mate and no way does he beat Nadal in 2010 US Open form.

US11:

Novak + Federer

or

Nadal + Murray

Again, not happening.

There's no way, maybe he could beat one of them, but not both to reach the final.

But when you say could 35 year old Andre beat:

Blake + Ginepri

LOL yeah of course, but even with that, he barely scraped through, but yeah, we'll all believe he's going to knock off 2 members of the big 4. Get real.

The main reason why Agassi reached the final was that he didn't have to beat any top player to reach it. He simply had an easy draw. Federer today would reach a final with an wasy draw.

I have seen worse. In 1974 Rosewall at 39 reached 2 straight slam finals. Compared to this, Agassi reaching a USO final is nothing.

 

[NatF]

The main reason why Agassi reached the final was that he didn't have to beat any top player to reach it. He simply had an easy draw. Federer today would reach a final with an wasy draw.

I have seen worse. In 1974 Rosewall at 39 reached 2 straight slam finals. Compared to this, Agassi reaching a USO final is nothing.

Blake was on fire, he would of been tough for any top player. He gave Federer a battle the next year as well...

 

[The_Order]

I meant overall not the final, 04 was way better in the final.

Oh, ok well I was referring to the final.

Though I still think in 04, overall he was better at WIM btw.

He could beat one of them is what I was saying, I believe he could make a final. More than that no - but then he was beaten in 4 by Federer anyway.

Beating one of them would not get him to the final. He would need to beat one of them in the quarters and then the other in the semi to get to the final in every year from 08-11 except for 2010 IF and only if he was in Nadal's side of the draw. He would've met Rafa in the semi, but it's irrelevant anyway because in 2010 Rafa would've swiped him off in straight sets at the US Open.

 

[The_Order]

The main reason why Agassi reached the final was that he didn't have to beat any top player to reach it. He simply had an easy draw. Federer today would reach a final with an wasy draw.

Which is why I said 05 wasn't particularly strong. Name one slam final a player reached from 08-11 without beating a top player?

I have seen worse. In 1974 Rosewall at 39 reached 2 straight slam finals. Compared to this, Agassi reaching a USO final is nothing.

Yes but that was a completely different era, I don't think tennis was as physical back then as it was in 05.

 

[NatF]

Oh, ok well I was referring to the final.

Though I still think in 04, overall he was better at WIM btw.

He was better in 04, but he wasn't crap in 05 is what I was saying - aside from the final where he had no belief.

Beating one of them would not get him to the final. He would need to beat one of them in the quarters and then the other in the semi to get to the final in every year from 08-11 except for 2010 IF and only if he was in Nadal's side of the draw. He would've met Rafa in the semi, but it's irrelevant anyway because in 2010 Rafa would've swiped him off in straight sets at the US Open.

I see what you're saying now. Fair enough, if Agassi had managed to save energy I think he could get through Nadal/Murray in 2008 personally.

I don't think Agassi gets straight setted at Flushing personally. The crowd would push him to get a set IMO.

 

[The_Order]

I see what you're saying now. Fair enough, if Agassi had managed to save energy I think he could get through Nadal/Murray in 2008 personally.

I don't think Agassi gets straight setted at Flushing personally. The crowd would push him to get a set IMO.

The crowd would have nothing to do with it. Nadal was playing too well to allow a 35 year old Agassi a set.

Djokovic barely managed to get one and he was playing well in the final.

 

[NatF]

The crowd would have nothing to do with it. Nadal was playing too well to allow a 35 year old Agassi a set.

Djokovic barely managed to get one and he was playing well in the final.

Agree to disagree. Agassi got a set from Federer, I think he could do the same against Rafa.

 

[70sHollywood]

I think Federer probably benefited from a weaker era in 2004 and 2007 but in 2005 and 2006 it was more a case of his brilliance. In other words, if the Federer of 04-07 plays 11-14 he would not win 11 slams but would still win...several.

 

[Djokovic2011]

The only thing making 2008-2011 stronger than 2004-2007 is the presence of Nadal and Djokovic. Take them away and it is weaker than 2004-2007. Djokovic was also a presence in 2007, so we can even include him in the 2004-2007 era. We both know Nadal was extremely relevant then too, even if he was young.

Roddick, Safin and Hewitt >> Ferrer, Berdych, Tsonga, ect.
Gonzales > Tsonga and Berdych.
2007 Nadal >> 2015 Nadal.

And I can go on..

 

[TMF]

I think Federer probably benefited from a weaker era in 2004 and 2007 but in 2005 and 2006 it was more a case of his brilliance. In other words, if the Federer of 04-07 plays 11-14 he would not win 11 slams but would still win...several.

But put Sampras, Nadal, Borg, Nole, Lendl, Laver or any player in 04-07 and none of them would have won 11 slams either.

 

[abmk]

We weren't talking about 03. Obviously, you still haven't improved your reading comprehension skills.

We were talking from 04+ and from 04+ Roddick had his best year at the majors in 09.

He had TWO top ten victories in 05 and finished ranked #3. He backed it up with only ONE top ten victory in 06 and that was in the very last tournament of the season.

The guy just wasn't a strong rival...

obviously you are sad at analysis ...why should we talk about only from 04+...why not include 04 in federer's competition ?

roddick dipped in the first half of 2006, but was decent in the second half, winning cincy and making the final of the USO playing pretty well ...

05 - he might not have had that many top 10 wins per se, but he did take out grosjean and johanssen who were pretty decent on grass ---- which is why although top 10 wins is a decent measure, it doesn't tell the whole story ...

Roddick's only "shocker" per se was the first round exit vs Muller, which given that it was the first round -- increased the possibility of the upset ...otherwise, he was good at AO & wimbledon - SF and F ..had a 59-14 record and won 5 titles, not his very best for sure, but not a 'bad' year either

 

[abmk]

How the hell was 05 a strong year?

Safin disappeared after the AO, 35 year old cripple making it to the US Open final, Roddick was noticeably a LOT weaker than 04, Nalbandian was borderline top 10 until winning the YEC.

Really Nadal emerged on clay and the field was that weak that he was able to take a couple of HC Masters as well.

And Hewitt had some of his best performances in the majors.

That's it though, there's nothing really strong about 05 at all.

04 wasn't bad and 07 had the emergence of Djokovic but they weren't stronger than 08,09,11,12 and 13.

this is a load of bull ....

Agassi was playing some inspired tennis, that's why he got to the final in the USO ...besides it was the other half that was stacked - with federer, hewitt and nalbandian

AO 05 had - hewitt making his great run at the AO , federer-safin epic and a pretty good final

RG 2005 had rafa vs fed, rafa vs puerta and puerta vs davydenko

wimbledon 2005 had three of the best grasscourters at that time in the semis - federer, hewitt and roddick ...and the federer-hewitt match, hewitt played much better than the scoreline suggests

USO had federer-hewitt, agassi-blake, federer-agassi etc .

the masters had matches like federer-hewitt at IW, federer-nadal at miami , nadal-coria at rome, nadal-ljubicic etc. etc.

year ended with an epic final at the YEC

how the f***** hell is that not a strong year ?

nadal didn't take a couple of masters on HC because the field was weak, but because he was good enough on HC ...

 

[abmk]

Roddick was not rubbish compared to 04 overall at Wimbledon. He beat Grosjean and Johansson both of whom were playing well - Johansson actually had the highest ratio of winners to errors across the whole tournament, even higher than Federer.

And 35 year old Agassi would have plenty of chances to beat those guys playing like he did in the QF. The SF he didn't play as well, probably tried to pace himself.

exactly ...The_Order seems to think just because roddick didn't play that well in the 2nd round vs a low ranked guy , he didn't improve at all ..

stunningly blind analysis ...apparently only rafa nadal can improve from earlier rounds to later rounds at wimbledon :lol:

 

[70sHollywood]

Thanks for this, again the 11-present does better. I feel this current era will do better probably no matter what we subject it to.

I'd like to get some information and quotes of surfaces speeds. I do wonder if the greater consistency is down to the slowing of the courts.

Well, there was a study done a few years ago that argued surface speeds have not changed in 20 years. It was based on ace rates and break rates.

http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-convergence/

It's worth noting that in terms of general win% the record of the top guys took a dip in the 90's. The top guys in the 70's-80's and the top guys now are all about the same, but Sampras and Agassi are considerably lower - about the same % as guys like Murray and Vilas.

 

[abmk]

Which is why I said 05 wasn't particularly strong. Name one slam final a player reached from 08-11 without beating a top player?

your own boy humbalito at Wimbledon 2008 ? no top 10 players beaten on the way to the final

same in RG 2010

nadal would have if he beaten tsonga in AO 08 , but we all know that turned out :twisted:

federer himself in wimbledon 2008
federer in RG 2008
federer in wimbledon 09


that's not just 1, but 5 ...

Is that enough ownage or do you still crave for more ? :lol:

 

[NatF]

Well, there was a study done a few years ago that argued surface speeds have not changed in 20 years. It was based on ace rates and break rates.

http://heavytopspin.com/2013/04/08/the-mirage-of-surface-speed-convergence/

It's worth noting that in terms of general win% the record of the top guys took a dip in the 90's. The top guys in the 70's-80's and the top guys now are all about the same, but Sampras and Agassi are considerably lower - about the same % as guys like Murray and Vilas.

With serve stats the racquets aid servers the same or more than the courts aid returners. It doesn't mean the courts haven't slowed. I think it's pretty clear with the slowing of grass and the removal of carpet that the courts are slower - at least on average.

I have read that article but not recently.

 

[NatF]

this is a load of bull ....

Agassi was playing some inspired tennis, that's why he got to the final in the USO ...besides it was the other half that was stacked - with federer, hewitt and nalbandian

AO 05 had - hewitt making his great run at the AO , federer-safin epic and a pretty good final

RG 2005 had rafa vs fed, rafa vs puerta and puerta vs davydenko

wimbledon 2005 had three of the best grasscourters at that time in the semis - federer, hewitt and roddick ...and the federer-hewitt match, hewitt played much better than the scoreline suggests

USO had federer-hewitt, agassi-blake, federer-agassi etc .

the masters had matches like federer-hewitt at IW, federer-nadal at miami , nadal-coria at rome, nadal-ljubicic etc. etc.

year ended with an epic final at the YEC

how the f***** hell is that not a strong year ?

nadal didn't take a couple of masters on HC because the field was weak, but because he was good enough on HC ...

Yeah 2005 had tons of really good competitive matches. I can't see how a year where the top 10 were winning that match matches against the 11+ guys and had 29 tour titles is weak.

Yeah Nadal played well at Montreal and Madrid, the final of Madrid was serious tennis. A lot of guys probably haven't seen it though :lol:

 

[70sHollywood]

With serve stats the racquets aid servers the same or more than the courts aid returners. It doesn't mean the courts haven't slowed. I think it's pretty clear with the slowing of grass and the removal of carpet that the courts are slower - at least on average.

I have read that article but not recently.

I decided to have a look at 1st Serve Points Won:

Year - % Diff - Grass - Clay

2014: 4.54: - 73.48 - 70.29
2013: 5.07: - 73.12 - 69.59
2012: 4.13: - 72.09 - 69.23
2011: 4.85: - 71.96 - 68.63
2010: 5.92: - 73.05 - 68.97
2009: 6.73: - 73.94 - 69.28
2008: 5.93: - 72.88 - 68.80
2007: 6.80: - 72.57 - 67.95
2006: 6.04: - 72.12 - 68.01
2005: 4.24: - 70.28 - 67.42
2004: 4.60: - 71.44 - 68.30
2003: 2.56: - 70.05 - 68.30
2002: 3.72: - 70.29 - 67.77
2001: 5.89: - 72.27 - 68.25
2000: 5.32: - 72.29 - 68.64
1999: 9.23: - 73.73 - 67.50
1998: 7.52: - 73.67 - 68.52
1997: 7.46: - 73.50 - 68.40
1996: 6.53: - 72.42 - 67.98
1995: 7.38: - 72.50 - 67.52
1994: 7.08: - 72.76 - 67.95
1993: 9.77: - 73.28 - 66.76
1992: 10.25: - 73.70 - 66.85
1991: 8.94: - 70.07 - 64.32

 

[The_Order]

your own boy humbalito at Wimbledon 2008 ? no top 10 players beaten on the way to the final

same in RG 2010

nadal would have if he beaten tsonga in AO 08 , but we all know that turned out :twisted:

federer himself in wimbledon 2008
federer in RG 2008
federer in wimbledon 09


that's not just 1, but 5 ...

Is that enough ownage or do you still crave for more ? :lol:

You are talking about the very top players themselves you clown. Of course it's going to be tougher for them to run into another top player.

Good to see Federer has done it so many times though, quite obvious how easy his draws have been so thanks for pointing that out.

Nadal had to beat Federer to win the Wimbledon title and he did. Couldn't have got a tougher opponent than that.

2010 RG is also another irrelevant one. Nadal has won it 9 times, it's not like a top ten player would've done much to stop him.

Agassi in US05 on the other hand...

 

[The_Order]

obviously you are sad at analysis ...why should we talk about only from 04+...why not include 04 in federer's competition ?

04+ does include 04...

If you read the OP, you would realise that he started his analysis from 04+.

So I was being on topic...

roddick dipped in the first half of 2006, but was decent in the second half, winning cincy and making the final of the USO playing pretty well ...

Decent?

3R at Wimbledon, missing a lot of Masters events, ranking dropping?

:lol:

05 - he might not have had that many top 10 wins per se, but he did take out grosjean and johanssen who were pretty decent on grass ---- which is why although top 10 wins is a decent measure, it doesn't tell the whole story ...

Yeah, it only tells the story when it suits your agenda. Like trying to put Novak down in 2010 US Open final when truth is, Novak had a strong finish to 2010 and it was the catalyst for his 2011 run. He beat more top ten opponents in the second half of 2010 than Roddick did in 05 & 06 combined :lol:

Roddick's only "shocker" per se was the first round exit vs Muller, which given that it was the first round -- increased the possibility of the upset ...otherwise, he was good at AO & wimbledon - SF and F ..had a 59-14 record and won 5 titles, not his very best for sure, but not a 'bad' year either

He won all those titles because he didn't have any top players in his way because the era was so weak that the top players weren't even consistent enough to get to him in those tournaments.

In 05 he almost lost to a LL in the second round at Wimbledon. Grosjean and Johansson are decent players but they're nothing special. Grosjean wasn't even in great form heading into that quarter final, I remember him struggling and having to battle to get there.

He won Lyon without even facing a top 20 opponent.

Won Washington without facing anyone in the top 40!

Won Queen's with 16th ranked Stepanek as his highest ranked opponent.

Won Houston with 30th ranked Grosjean as his highest ranked opponent.

And he won San Jose with 17th ranked Haas as his highest ranked opponent.

WOW the guy was a beast. How did Federer keep him at bay?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

You are talking about the very top players themselves you clown. Of course it's going to be tougher for them to run into another top player.

Good to see Federer has done it so many times though, quite obvious how easy his draws have been so thanks for pointing that out.

Nadal had to beat Federer to win the Wimbledon title and he did. Couldn't have got a tougher opponent than that.

2010 RG is also another irrelevant one. Nadal has won it 9 times, it's not like a top ten player would've done much to stop him.

Agassi in US05 on the other hand...

Then why are you putting down Roddick and Hewitt, who were also top players. :???:

 

[The_Order]

this is a load of bull ....

Load of bull?

Safin disappeared after the AO

35 year old cripple making it to the US Open final

Roddick was noticeably a LOT weaker than 04

Nalbandian was borderline top 10 until winning the YEC

ALL of those are true. If you're so smart, why don't you try and disprove these statements, or are you full of bull?

Agassi was playing some inspired tennis, that's why he got to the final in the USO ...besides it was the other half that was stacked - with federer, hewitt and nalbandian

No, he got to the final because he didn't have to play anyone anywhere near as tough as the semi final players from the 08-11 era. That's why.

AO 05 had - hewitt making his great run at the AO , federer-safin epic and a pretty good final

One good major doesn't mean the YEAR was tough :lol:

RG 2005 had rafa vs fed, rafa vs puerta and puerta vs davydenko

Puerta was doping. Rafa was a teen just making his rise to the top and he still won RG convincingly.

wimbledon 2005 had three of the best grasscourters at that time in the semis - federer, hewitt and roddick ...and the federer-hewitt match, hewitt played much better than the scoreline suggests

Hewitt was underdone heading into Wimbledon and Roddick's form was definitely below 04.

USO had federer-hewitt, agassi-blake, federer-agassi etc .

Yes a 35 year old making it to the final. Real tough. Tell me which year from 08-11 would 35 year old Agassi made it to the final???

the masters had matches like federer-hewitt at IW, federer-nadal at miami , nadal-coria at rome, nadal-ljubicic etc. etc.

Yes, teenage Nadal giving 2005 some credibility. But when this guy reached his prime, he was lucky to beat weaker opponents with easy draws...

year ended with an epic final at the YEC

how the f***** hell is that not a strong year ?

I've already told you. Read again.

nadal didn't take a couple of masters on HC because the field was weak, but because he was good enough on HC ...

Ohh ok, so explain to me how a teenage Nadal was good enough to beat the strongest era players of all time on a HC, but then in his prime and when he was in scintillating form, he was lucky to have weak draws and only won his US Opens because of this?

 

[The_Order]

Then why are you putting down Roddick and Hewitt, who were also top players. :???:

No, I was talking about Agassi's 05 US Open draw. Read things first before you start making ridiculous claims.

 

[abmk]

You are talking about the very top players themselves you clown. Of course it's going to be tougher for them to run into another top player.

Good to see Federer has done it so many times though, quite obvious how easy his draws have been so thanks for pointing that out.

Nadal had to beat Federer to win the Wimbledon title and he did. Couldn't have got a tougher opponent than that.

2010 RG is also another irrelevant one. Nadal has won it 9 times, it's not like a top ten player would've done much to stop him.

Agassi in US05 on the other hand...

federer had it thrice in that period, compared to twice for rafa ...whoppity doo ...

and there wasn't a single major from 2004-07 where federer didn't beat a top 10 player before the final ....

basically you got owned. End of story ....

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, I was talking about Agassi's 05 US Open draw. Read things first before you start making ridiculous claims.

You were talking about Roddick having 2 top 10 victories in 2005 and said similar things about Hewitt earlier on..

But when it's Nadal in question, the excuses go flying.

 

[The_Order]

federer had it thrice in that period, compared to twice for rafa ...whoppity doo ...

basically you got owned. End of story ....

No, once again you fail to understand what was being said.

When I said name a player, I wasn't talking about the very top players. I was talking about some one who was not fancied to win the tournament making it through to the final as was the case with Agassi in 05 US Open.

From 08-11 the only surprise slam finalists were Tsonga, Soderling, Roddick and Berdych.

Each of them had to beat a top 4 player to get to the final. They didn't have Agassi's 05 US Open style draws and barely scrape through.

Sorry everything needs to be spelled out for you.

 

[The_Order]

and there wasn't a single major from 2004-07 where federer didn't beat a top 10 player before the final ....

Plenty where he didn't face a top 4 opponent including the final...

Nadal has had to beat a top 4 player to win every major apart from maybe one or two in his career.

 

[abmk]

04+ does include 04...

If you read the OP, you would realise that he started his analysis from 04+.

So I was being on topic...

then isn't it obvious roddick of 2004 > roddick of 2009, including just at slams ..duh !

Decent?

3R at Wimbledon, missing a lot of Masters events, ranking dropping?

:lol:

well, it may not have been obvious to you, but I did mean from the American swing, when he teamed with connors

Yeah, it only tells the story when it suits your agenda. Like trying to put Novak down in 2010 US Open final when truth is, Novak had a strong finish to 2010 and it was the catalyst for his 2011 run. He beat more top ten opponents in the second half of 2010 than Roddick did in 05 & 06 combined :lol:

Novak had a strong finish in 2010 ..so ? the recovery only started in USO 10 ..same as below though not to same extent ..

that roddick had a mediocre year in 2006 is relevant, but what is more relavant is that he was in fine form in USO 06 and met federer there

He won all those titles because he didn't have any top players in his way because the era was so weak that the top players weren't even consistent enough to get to him in those tournaments.

In 05 he almost lost to a LL in the second round at Wimbledon. Grosjean and Johansson are decent players but they're nothing special. Grosjean wasn't even in great form heading into that quarter final, I remember him struggling and having to battle to get there.

He won Lyon without even facing a top 20 opponent.

Won Washington without facing anyone in the top 40!

Won Queen's with 16th ranked Stepanek as his highest ranked opponent.

Won Houston with 30th ranked Grosjean as his highest ranked opponent.

And he won San Jose with 17th ranked Haas as his highest ranked opponent.

WOW the guy was a beast. How did Federer keep him at bay?

Notice how you skimmed over him beating hewitt in cincy ...obviously ...

and you are under-rating grosjean and johnasson ...typical

and roddick beat grosjean, karlovic and stepanek to win Queens, all more than capable on grass

he beat ancic and Mahut in Lyon who are more than handful on such a fast surface ...

 

[The_Order]

You were talking about Roddick having 2 top 10 victories in 2005 and said similar things about Hewitt earlier on..

But when it's Nadal in question, the excuses go flying.

No, in that instance, I was talking about Agassi's 05 US Open draw.

Roddick's top 10 victories were an analysis of his playing level over the SEASON. Big difference. If you read what was going on, you'd understand that.

 

[abmk]

Plenty where he didn't face a top 4 opponent including the final...

USO 2004 - he beat agassi and hewitt, the other 2 best players in that slam anyways

AO 2006 - beat #5 davydenko and baghdatis, the 2nd best player in that tourney

AO 07 - beat gonzales who cleaned up the clock of the #2 player in the QF
and tommy haas in the SF hitting 40+ winner for 3-4 UEs

wow, that is some "weak" draws .... !

Nadal has had to beat a top 4 player to win every major apart from maybe one or two in his career.

yeah, so ? it isn't necessary that a top 4 player is the toughest in every slam ...many a times a top 10 or top 20 or a dangerous floater could be ....

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, in that instance, I was talking about Agassi's 05 US Open draw.

Roddick's top 10 victories were an analysis of his playing level over the SEASON. Big difference. If you read what was going on, you'd understand that.

Nadal >> Roddick. Of course he's going to be better at defeating top 10 ranked opponents in any season..

But him "only having" 2 top 10 victories in 2005 doesn't make it a weak year.

 

[abmk]

No, once again you fail to understand what was being said.

When I said name a player, I wasn't talking about the very top players. I was talking about some one who was not fancied to win the tournament making it through to the final as was the case with Agassi in 05 US Open.

From 08-11 the only surprise slam finalists were Tsonga, Soderling, Roddick and Berdych.

Each of them had to beat a top 4 player to get to the final. They didn't have Agassi's 05 US Open style draws and barely scrape through.

Sorry everything needs to be spelled out for you.

that was not what you said ...

like I said, blake was playing fine tennis and Agassi took him out

just as importantly, the other half of the draw was the one that was stacked - the one with federer - federer, hewitt and nalbandian ...

which meant that federer went through nalbandian , hewitt and agassi ...

 

[The_Order]

then isn't it obvious roddick of 2004 > roddick of 2009, including just at slams ..duh !

Roddick's 04 slams record:

15-4

09 record:

16-4

So yeah, 09 was slightly better. But his playing level is subjective and imo was better in 09 as well.

well, it may not have been obvious to you, but I did mean from the American swing, when he teamed with connors

Why would it be obvious when you said SECOND HALF. Bloody unreal.

Novak had a strong finish in 2010 ..so ? the recovery only started in USO 10 ..same as below though not to same extent ..

So, it means that he wasn't as weak a US Open opponent as Roddick was in 06.

that roddick had a mediocre year in 2006 is relevant, but what is more relavant is that he was in fine form in USO 06 and met federer there

Then the same must be true for Novak. So next time, before you start whinging about Nadal having it easy remember that. Novak was in fine form in the US Open and when he's playing well he is tougher than anyone Federer faced in 06.

Notice how you skimmed over him beating hewitt in cincy ...obviously ...

Wow he beat Hewitt amazing. Stop the presses, this makes Roddick a supreme opponent, amazing how Federer beat him in the final.

and you are under-rating grosjean and johnasson ...typical

No I'm not, they're not anything special at Wimbledon. Fact.

I just checked, Grosjean almost lost to freaking Tursonov in 4R. Just as I remembered he struggled to even get to the qf.

and roddick beat grosjean, karlovic and stepanek to win Queens, all more than capable on grass

Ok, what are their grass results? Apart from Grosjean (who's ranking had dropped) the other two have only ever made it to one Wimbledon qf.

he beat ancic and Mahut in Lyon who are more than handful on such a fast surface ...

Scraping the barrel here.

 

[The_Order]

USO 2004 - he beat agassi and hewitt, the other 2 best players in that slam anyways

AO 2006 - beat #5 davydenko and baghdatis, the 2nd best player in that tourney

AO 07 - beat gonzales who cleaned up the clock of the #2 player in the QF
and tommy haas in the SF hitting 40+ winner for 3-4 UEs

wow, that is some "weak" draws .... !

All players that a peak Novak and Nadal would also beat.

yeah, so ? it isn't necessary that a top 4 player is the toughest in every slam ...many a times a top 10 or top 20 or a dangerous floater could be ....

No they'er not always the toughest, but having to face them so many times, it is overall a much tougher mountain to climb.

They were in form more often than not.

 

[The_Order]

that was not what you said ...

Well it's what I meant. Now that you know, you surely have to agree.

You said second half for Roddick's 06 season when you actually meant once he partnered with Connors which was later...

like I said, blake was playing fine tennis and Agassi took him out

just as importantly, the other half of the draw was the one that was stacked - the one with federer - federer, hewitt and nalbandian ...

which meant that federer went through nalbandian , hewitt and agassi ...

Blake playing fine tennis cannot be compared to Nadal, Novak, Del Potro, Murray and Federer playing fine tennis.

Nalbandian was rubbish in the qf. Verdasco in US10 was better.

 

[pc1]

What would be exceptionally interesting is if the top ten players opponent's total won/lost and winning percentage was calculated.

 

[The_Order]

Nadal >> Roddick. Of course he's going to be better at defeating top 10 ranked opponents in any season..

But him "only having" 2 top 10 victories in 2005 doesn't make it a weak year.

I wasn't comparing Nadal to Roddick. I was comparing Novak's 2010 to Roddick's 05&06.

His 2 victories and still finishing ranked #3 sure does indicate it's a weak year.

He went deep in 2 majors without having to beat top 10 opponents.

 

[abmk]

Roddick's 04 slams record:

15-4

09 record:

16-4

So yeah, 09 was slightly better. But his playing level is subjective and imo was better in 09 as well.

he was better in AO in 04 than in 09 ...he just happened to come across an in-form safin in the QF rather than a not so impressive djokovic in AO 09

wimbledon 04 and 09 are in and around the same level

USO 04 he was better than in 09 ....

Why would it be obvious when you said SECOND HALF. Bloody unreal.

So, it means that he wasn't as weak a US Open opponent as Roddick was in 06.

if someone did follow tennis at that time, they'd know, that's why ...


Then the same must be true for Novak. So next time, before you start whinging about Nadal having it easy remember that. Novak was in fine form in the US Open and when he's playing well he is tougher than anyone Federer faced in 06.

they were roughly at around the same level ...what happened later doesn't alter what happened at that time

 

[Deleted member 307496]

I wasn't comparing Nadal to Roddick. I was comparing Novak's 2010 to Roddick's 05&06.

His 2 victories and still finishing ranked #3 sure does indicate it's a weak year.

He went deep in 2 majors without having to beat top 10 opponents.

He only finished #3 because Hewitt and Safin were injured and out for large parts of the year..

And those two played at a higher level than Roddick consistently in 2005, Safin in particular at Monte Carlo and the Australian Open..

I still wouldn't say Novak had a spectacular 2010. For most the year he had terrible results, losing to Tsonga at the AO even..

 

[abmk]

Well it's what I meant. Now that you know, you surely have to agree.

You said second half for Roddick's 06 season when you actually meant once he partnered with Connors which was later...

Blake playing fine tennis cannot be compared to Nadal, Novak, Del Potro, Murray and Federer playing fine tennis.

yeah, even so ..so what ? it was one time ...not like it happened 3-4 times out of the 16 slams in that era ....

and like I said how the hell does it matter that much when it was the other half that was stacked - federer, hewitt and nalbandian and federer went through nalbandian, hewitt and agassi to win that USO ...we're talking about federer's competition, are we not !?

Nalbandian was rubbish in the qf. Verdasco in US10 was better.

LOL, wut a joke ...verdasco only played well for half a set ...nadal didn't even get into the groove until a set and half ..

as far as USO 05 match vs nalbandian is concerned, it was federer who took nalbandian out of his comfort zone completely ...completely different

 

[The_Order]

He only finished #3 because Hewitt and Safin were injured and out for large parts of the year..

Which only adds to making the year weaker...

I still wouldn't say Novak had a spectacular 2010. For most the year he had terrible results, losing to Tsonga at the AO even..

He didn't have a spectacular 2010 at all, but he did have a strong finish.

Also, Tsonga isn't a pushover at the AO.

 

[abmk]

All players that a peak Novak and Nadal would also beat.

not necessarily

at their very bests, you could say that...anything below that they're in big trouble ...

 

[The_Order]

he was better in AO in 04 than in 09 ...he just happened to come across an in-form safin in the QF rather than a not so impressive djokovic in AO 09

wimbledon 04 and 09 are in and around the same level

USO 04 he was better than in 09 ....

RG09 he made the 4R so overall he was better. Deal with it. 16-4 > 15-4.

if someone did follow tennis at that time, they'd know, that's why ...

Ha!

You stuffed up and then try and turn it on me. You said second half. Anyone who follows tennis knows when the second half of the season starts, but you obviously don't...

they were roughly at around the same level ...what happened later doesn't alter what happened at that time

No, they weren't around the same level, Roddick playing well is nowhere near as tough as Novak playing well. Novak is the far greater US Open player and at the time he was playing really well.