Tougher rivals: Fed or Pete?

[KINGROGER]

fair attempt, but the guy has no equal. Many have tried to carry his mantle and each and everyone of them has failed

I kinda wish they didn’t ban that 60sGrass impersonator. Just to see how he’d develop his trolling game

 

[abmk]

If Murray Djokovic matches wouldn't happen people would probably say just like you he wouldn't beat him at USO 12 and 13 W.

And also, Clement was the most capable to reach the final out of his draw. Still doesn't change that Murray with those kind of draws would add to his slam tally. I'm not saying he would win all of them, cause that is hard to say, we are all hypothetically speaking and all we can do is assume,( although You seem to be sent from the future since you know who'd beat who) but IMO Murray would add to his slam tally.

Now you can accept that opinion, or go away. You have no facts to tell me I'm wrong and you are right, wich you do to people 90% of the time

you were the one who said "I mean, I'm certain as hell"


you were the one who said Clement was the toughest opponent in AO 01 , he wasn't. It was Rafter. You are just clueless.
same for AO 00. Sampras, not Kafelnikov.

you said toughest opponent, not most capable of reaching the final. The two are not the same.

You are full of sh*t bringing in Clement, Kafelnikov instead of Rafter, Sampras for AO 01 and 00.
and of course you missed Moya in RG 99.

About Murray vs Djokovic , umm, no. Murray was considered the better GCer from 2009-2013 and was (except for 2011)
and yeah, 1 win in 7 HC slam matches for Murray vs Djokovic is not that unexpected. (esp. at the AO)

 

[axlrose]

This kind of thread always reminds me of the 300.

300 Spartan warriors (aka Pete fans) fought till the last drop of blood with 1million men troop of Persia (aka Fed fans)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Oh, but I totally agree that, overall, Agassi is a much better player. However, during Sampras' tenure, he wasn't leaps and bounds above Murray achievement-wise, and he rounded up his resume big time after Sampras fell off a cliff. Yes, he did waste some of his best years, but he can't be "rewarded" for this, obviously. Did he have a bigger potential? Yes, although maybe, had he been fully committed during his 20's, he may have paid for it in his 30's because of the added mileage. But their stats up to 30 are very close, including in slam finals (11 each). Of course, Agassi won twice as many, but their circumstances were different, and maybe Murray would have won more had he faced other players than Federer and Djokovic in his finals. Of course, their final tallies will be very different at the end of their respective careers, as Murray has basically zero chance of enjoying the same late-career resurgence as Agassi because of his hip. Still, comparing him to Hewitt is vastly underrating him (or overrating Hewitt--or both). Murray is seriously better than a player like Hewitt or Courier, it's not even close, to be honest.

You're overrating Murray. What's he shown in majors that's somehow much better than Lleyton?

Is it because you place immense value on MS-1000s or what?

Hewitt and Murray are quite close in terms of ability, Lleyton was just really unlucky to run into peak Fed.

Stop freaking overrating Murray. It's insane.

 

[EloQuent]

You're overrating Murray. What's he shown in majors that's somehow much better than Lleyton?

Is it because you place immense value on MS-1000s or what?

Hewitt and Murray are quite close in terms of ability, Lleyton was just really unlucky to run into peak Fed.

Stop freaking overrating Murray. It's insane.

Murray made 11 slam finals. How many did Hewitt?

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Murray made 11 slam finals. How many did Hewitt?

Hewitt had 2 surgeries at his peak ending his career as a top player. How many did Murray?

How many GS finals did Murray have at 25?

 

[killerboi2]

edit: double post

 

[EloQuent]

Hewitt had 2 surgeries at his peak ending his career as a top player. How many did Murray?

How many GS finals did Murray have at 25?

5.

 

[killerboi2]

Hewitt and Murray are quite close in terms of ability

Lmao why do you keep saying that? I mean I respect Hewitt's fight and what he has achieved but Murray is his superior in practically every way. He's not just a little bit better than him, he's better than him by a clear, visible margin. I don't understand how people can claim to know a lot about tennis and not be able to see this margin.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Lmao why do you keep saying that? I mean I respect Hewitt's fight and what he has achieved but Murray is his superior in practically every way. He's not just a little bit better than him, he's better than him by a clear, visible margin. I don't understand how people can claim to know a lot about tennis and not be able to see this margin.

Because it's not there? Even my Dad who has followed tennis since Laver and thinks Sampras is above Federer in ability doesn't rate Murray too high.

How can people who claim to know tennis not see that? Lmao.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

5.

1 more. Big difference there bud.

 

[EloQuent]

1 more. Big difference there bud.

Chang is clearly the bestest player ever, tell me who else won at 17 huh. these games are fun.

Because it's not there? Even my Dad who has followed tennis since Laver and thinks Sampras is above Federer in ability doesn't rate Murray too high.

How can people who claim to know tennis not see that? Lmao.

Yes your dad is clearly someone who is good at ranking players

 

[KINGROGER]

Lmao why do you keep saying that? I mean I respect Hewitt's fight and what he has achieved but Murray is his superior in practically every way. He's not just a little bit better than him, he's better than him by a clear, visible margin. I don't understand how people can claim to know a lot about tennis and not be able to see this margin.

They’re the same level, Murray just had better longevity as he didn’t have as many bad injuries as Hewitt did mid prime.

 

[killerboi2]

They’re the same level, Murray just had better longevity

Quite a lot better to the point where it is ridiuclous how better, to the point where Hewitt can't even be put on his level. Prime for prime i'd put Murray ahead too...the guy is basically Hewitt 2.0.

 

[metsman]

5.

No, he had three and shat the bed in all of them.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Chang is clearly the bestest player ever, tell me who else won at 17 huh. these games are fun.

Keep getting mad bro.

Yes your dad is clearly someone who is good at ranking players

Considering he played competition tennis and was beating 17 year olds at 13 I'd say so.

Better than you at least.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

No, he had three and shat the bed in all of them.

Lmao.

 

[killerboi2]

No, he had three and shat the bed in all of them.

Hewitt got double bagled by Fed and lost to Safin in 2 of his 4 slam finals. And this is a guy that isn't that different to Murray. A guy with 4 freaking slam finals in his whole career? Ridiculous...

 

[EloQuent]

(deleted, bc the gif I tried to load didn't work. gn, hope you know this is all in good fun, @Sabratha)

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt got double bagled by Fed and lost to Safin in 2 of his 4 slam finals. And this is a guy that isn't that different to Murray. A guy with 4 freaking slam finals in his whole career? Ridiculous...

Murray nearly ate a double bagel against old man Fed he was just generous enough to gift him a game.

Lmao, keep overrating Murray.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Hewitt got double bagled by Fed and lost to Safin in 2 of his 4 slam finals. And this is a guy that isn't that different to Murray. A guy with 4 freaking slam finals in his whole career? Ridiculous...

You don't seem to understand how recovery technology works. Aren't you the guy that said the only changes are surfaces?

Keep going Fed hater.

Also that Safin just took out Fed and was GOATing. Just lol dude.

 

[metsman]

Hewitt got double bagled by Fed and lost to Safin in 2 of his 4 slam finals. And this is a guy that isn't that different to Murray. A guy with 4 freaking slam finals in his whole career? Ridiculous...

08 USO final or 11 AO final was just as embarrassing as 04 USO. 05 AO final is a better performance than 8 of Murray's 11 slam finals.

Murray has more slam finals because he's more consistent, which inherently makes him a more accomplished player, but not a tougher player.

 

[EloQuent]

You don't seem to understand how recovery technology works. Aren't you the guy that said the only changes are surfaces?

Keep going Fed hater.

Also that Safin just took out Fed and was GOATing. Just lol dude.

Safin is now the GOAT? Why not Marin Cilic

 

[killerboi2]

Safin is now the GOAT? Why not Marin Cilic

Cilic is underrated on here. I'll back the guy to win another slam over mugs like Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori etc.

 

[chjtennis]

Before 2013. 5-2, 2-0 in slams, still quite one sided.

That's just too small a sample from 7+ years of rivalry. As they are playing more now, I think more correction will come. Also, Federer's peak was until 2007 and Nadal's was from 2008. You would expect the younger player to win more when they are very close in terms of level. Usually, the older one gets a lot of wins while his younger rival is still not mature, then as the older one gets past his peak and the younger one enters his, the younger guy catches up and possibly even overtake. However, Federer and Nadal didn't face each other that often early in Nadal's career because Nadal couldn't make it to the deep stages of non-clay tournaments. By the time he could do it, Federer was past his peak and also he was owned by Nadal from all those losses on clay. The matchup also made it tough for Federer to beat Nadal and we all know that, and the biggest factor was Federer's BH with 90 sq" frame that would always make him struggle to make contact with the heavy topspin FH from Nadal on the center of the racket. With the bigger frame, that problem doesn't exist anymore and hence the results have been dramatically different. Had Federer made the switch to 97 sq" frame in 2008, around the time Courier, Sampras and many other experts were very vocal about it, he probably would have had different career from 2011 onwards, by the time he probably would have fully adapted to the new racket, like he had in 2017.

 

[EloQuent]

Cilic is underrated on here. I'll back the guy to win another slam over mugs like Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori etc.

yeah I agree.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Safin is now the GOAT? Why not Marin Cilic

Your reading comprehension needs work.

 

[Deleted member 307496]

Cilic is underrated on here. I'll back the guy to win another slam over mugs like Dimitrov, Raonic, Nishikori etc.

Cilic is alright. Just needs another decent run or two. Could be the Rafter of this era maybe.

 

[merlinpinpin]

Disagree, by no means can you rate Murray as greater than Courier. He belongs in the Courier/Vilas tier, not the Agassi tier.

Of course Murray doesn't belong in the same tier as Agassi (we were talking about Agassi during Sampras' tenure, ie during the 90's achievement-wise). I have him as one full tier behind (but also one tier about Courier, ie Agassi 2 > Murray - Vilas 3 > Courier-Hewitt 4).

You're overrating Murray. What's he shown in majors that's somehow much better than Lleyton?

Is it because you place immense value on MS-1000s or what?

Hewitt and Murray are quite close in terms of ability, Lleyton was just really unlucky to run into peak Fed.

Stop freaking overrating Murray. It's insane.

Hewitt had 2 surgeries at his peak ending his career as a top player. How many did Murray?

How many GS finals did Murray have at 25?

You're actually proving my points with these two messages.

"Hewitt and Murray are quite close in terms of ability," --> Abilities are different from results. In the end, neither Hewitt nor anyone else can be gifted additional, hypothetical wins because they had the "ability" to get them. Fed would have won more RG's had he played in any other era (except maybe Borg's), but he didn't and, for better or worse, his tally remains at one. Was he better on clay than this lone slam seems to suggest? Yes, but in the end, he didn't get more, so it is what it is. Likewise, Borg will forever remain at 11 slams, even though his winning percentage is higher than any other ATG in the history of the game. He "should" rightly be above Sampras slam-wise, but he isn't, and "should-have's"/"could-have's" don't cut it.

"Lleyton was just really unlucky to run into peak Fed." --> But Murray wasn't "unlucky" to run into Djokovic and Federer as compared to Martin or Medvedev?

"Hewitt had 2 surgeries at his peak ending his career as a top player." --> Back, then hip (no surgery yet, but he may still get there, and the result is the same anyway). That's one plus one. I'll let you run the numbers, but I can spoil you right now--the totals aren't too dissimilar.

"How many GS finals did Murray have at 25?" --> I have no problem in saying that, at 25, Hewitt was ahead of Murray in just about any metric (especially since this is fairly obvious). But at the end of their respective careers, they won't be in the same ballpark because, although he was a superb player, Hewitt didn't have longevity on his side. Just like at 29-30, Murray was close to Agassi achievement-wise, but he'll never be able to match what Andre did after 30 and he'll end up one full tier behind him.

 

[zep]

That's just too small a sample from 7+ years of rivalry. As they are playing more now, I think more correction will come. Also, Federer's peak was until 2007 and Nadal's was from 2008. You would expect the younger player to win more when they are very close in terms of level. Usually, the older one gets a lot of wins while his younger rival is still not mature, then as the older one gets past his peak and the younger one enters his, the younger guy catches up and possibly even overtake. However, Federer and Nadal didn't face each other that often early in Nadal's career because Nadal couldn't make it to the deep stages of non-clay tournaments. By the time he could do it, Federer was past his peak and also he was owned by Nadal from all those losses on clay. The matchup also made it tough for Federer to beat Nadal and we all know that, and the biggest factor was Federer's BH with 90 sq" frame that would always make him struggle to make contact with the heavy topspin FH from Nadal on the center of the racket. With the bigger frame, that problem doesn't exist anymore and hence the results have been dramatically different. Had Federer made the switch to 97 sq" frame in 2008, around the time Courier, Sampras and many other experts were very vocal about it, he probably would have had different career from 2011 onwards, by the time he probably would have fully adapted to the new racket, like he had in 2017.

You can make any number of excuses but the bottom line is that Federer did not have an upper hand over Nadal on outdoor hard courts until 2017, if anything it was the opposite. Deep down every Fed fan knows it. 7 is not a small number. For example, he played Nadal 4 times on indoor hard courts in the same period and went 4-0. There is a reason for that.

 

[SafinSucks]

Murray > Hewitt.

It is quite obvious, and I like none of them, they are the definition of boring.

 

[mike danny]

You can make any number of excuses but the bottom line is that Federer did not have an upper hand over Nadal on outdoor hard courts until 2017, if anything it was the opposite. Deep down every Fed fan knows it. 7 is not a small number. For example, he played Nadal 4 times on indoor hard courts in the same period and went 4-0. There is a reason for that.

He played Nadal just 3 times on outdoor HC at his peak. A very very small sample.

 

[mike danny]

You can make any number of excuses but the bottom line is that Federer did not have an upper hand over Nadal on outdoor hard courts until 2017, if anything it was the opposite. Deep down every Fed fan knows it. 7 is not a small number. For example, he played Nadal 4 times on indoor hard courts in the same period and went 4-0. There is a reason for that.

Just like you did not even consider 2017, which is the most relevant year in their HC rivalry as it was the first time they played 4 HC matches in a season.

Most of their outdoor HC matches were after AO 2010, the last tournament of prime Fed.

 

[zep]

Just like you did not even consider 2017, which is the most relevant year in their HC rivalry as it was the first time they played 4 HC matches in a season.

Most of their outdoor HC matches were after AO 2010, the last tournament of prime Fed.

lol 2017 is the most relevant because Federer beat Nadal.

In 2017 first 3 matches Nadal was still far from his best, especially at IW and Miami. He played like crap in both those matches. Federer actually played far better in 2013 at Cincy and London in comparison. IW 2013 was admittedly poor performance from Fed.

 

[chjtennis]

You can make any number of excuses but the bottom line is that Federer did not have an upper hand over Nadal on outdoor hard courts until 2017, if anything it was the opposite. Deep down every Fed fan knows it. 7 is not a small number. For example, he played Nadal 4 times on indoor hard courts in the same period and went 4-0. There is a reason for that.

7 is definitely a small number over 10 years. Also, why do leave out 2017? I think 2017 has finally given us the correct picture about their H2H because Federer has finally fully adapted to his 97 sq" frame and Nadal's good old tactic - attacking Fed's BH with his heavy FH topspin - has finally been solved by Rogi. It has finally shown us that when they are both healthy, Federer has the edge over Nadal on every surface except clay. If you have any problems with that, I don't know how I can enlighten you.

 

[zep]

Federer has the edge over Nadal on every surface except clay.

No he absolutely does not. Only surface where Fed has had clear edge is indoor hard. Numbers back that up. Now after 2017 you could say that outdoor hard and grass were fairly even as far the rivalry goes.

 

[chjtennis]

lol 2017 is the most relevant because Federer beat Nadal.

In 2017 first 3 matches Nadal was still far from his best, especially at IW and Miami. He played like crap in both those matches. Federer actually played far better in 2013 at Cincy and London in comparison. IW 2013 was admittedly poor performance from Fed.

As far as I could see, Nadal played worse as the year progressed. From AO to Miami, Nadal faced much tougher opponents than he faced during USO swing and beat most of them. He was in as good a form as possible and still couldn't beat Fed.

 

[chjtennis]

No he absolutely does not. Only surface where Fed has had clear edge is indoor hard. Numbers back that up. Now after 2017 you could say that outdoor hard and grass were fairly even as far the rivalry goes.

AO, IW and MIA - all outdoor HC, and IW and MIA are slow ones as well.

 

[mike danny]

lol 2017 is the most relevant because Federer beat Nadal.

In 2017 first 3 matches Nadal was still far from his best, especially at IW and Miami. He played like crap in both those matches. Federer actually played far better in 2013 at Cincy and London in comparison. IW 2013 was admittedly poor performance from Fed.

Nah, Fed also played poor in many matches vs Nadal on outdoor HC, but you don't mention that.

Cincy 2013 was a good performance from Fed, but he played better in 2012 and 2015. And guess what, Nadal dodged Fed in 2015 Cincy and in 2015 overall, which is why the outdoor HC H2H is still the way it is.

And no way did Fed play better at 2013 WTF. You're just trying to overhype Nadal and diminish Fed's wins over him in 2017.

For you 2017 is irrelevant because Nadal could not beat Fed so that's why you excluded it. Tit for tat.

 

[zep]

Nah, Fed also played poor in many matches vs Nadal on outdoor HC, but you don't mention that.

Cincy 2013 was a good performance from Fed, but he played better in 2012 and 2015. And guess what, Nadal dodged Fed in 2015 Cincy and in 2015 overall, which is why the outdoor HC H2H is still the way it is.

For you 2017 is irrelevant because Nadal could not beat Fed so that's why you did not even bother to mention it. Tit for tat.

You are not going to get absolute best vs best all the time. Federer also got to play Nadal on hard courts in 2004-07 period when Nadal was not that good on hard courts yet Nadal still beat him. That's how it is. When you take career numbers such factors tend to average out over such a long time.

 

[zep]

AO, IW and MIA - all outdoor HC, and IW and MIA are slow ones as well.

Again you can make any number of excuses, Federer has won many titles on those surfaces as well but even you know that in this particular match up he has always had problems. Even on grass which is by far his best surface he was unable to thrash Nadal convincingly. As I said before, only surface he was totally comfortable against Nadal for the most of his career was indoor hard and it was partly because of Nadal's own inability to perform well on indoor hard. All said and done, numbers read,

Clay 13-2 Nadal
Outdoor hard 8-5 Nadal (3-1 slam)
Indoor hard 6-1 Federer
Grass 2-1 Federer

One can draw their conclusions from these numbers.


In 2017 Federer for the first time seems to have turned the tide on outdoor hard courts. We shall see how it goes in the future.

 

[mike danny]

You are not going to get absolute best vs best all the time. Federer also got to play Nadal on hard courts in 2004-07 period when Nadal was not that good on hard courts yet Nadal still beat him. That's how it is. When you take career numbers such factors tend to average out over such a long time.

Exactly. Which is why 2017 very much counts, so let's not try to exclude it.

And let's not pull off scams like "Fed played better at Cincy and WTF 2013 than Nadal in 2017" to pump up Nadal needlessly and diminish Fed's wins over Nadal in 2017.

Fed did get to play Nadal on HC in 2004-2007, but only 3 times and 2 of those matches were in Miami. They didn't play at places that favor Fed more like IW, Cincy, USO etc.

If you don't believe me, I'll let you know that even Roddick has a H2H lead over Fed in Miami.

 

[zep]

Exactly. Which is why 2017 very much counts, so let's not try to exclude it.

And let's not pull off scams like "Fed played better at Cincy and WTF 2013 than Nadal in 2017" to pump up Nadal needlessly and diminish Fed's wins over Nadal in 2017.

Fed did get to play Nadal on HC in 2004-2007, but only 3 times and 2 of those matches were in Miami. They didn't play at places that favor Fed more like IW, Cincy, USO etc.

If you don't believe me, I'll let you know that even Roddick has a H2H lead over Fed in Miami.

I never discounted 2017, you pick a sentence out of context and start debating and this is not the first time you have done it. My point was before 2017 Nadal clearly had an upper hand over Federer on outdoor hard courts. You have to be in severe denial not to admit that. But in 2017 Federer seems to have found an answer for the first time. Overall it it what it is 8-5 (shanghai was indoor).

 

[mike danny]

Again you can make any number of excuses, Federer has won many titles on those surfaces as well but even you know that in this particular match up he has always had problems. Even on grass which is by far his best surface he was unable to thrash Nadal convincingly. As I said before, only surface he was totally comfortable against Nadal for the most of his career was indoor hard and it was partly because of Nadal's own inability to perform well on indoor hard. All said and done, numbers read,

Clay 13-2 Nadal
Outdoor hard 8-5 Nadal (3-1 slam)
Indoor hard 6-1 Federer
Grass 2-1 Federer

One can draw their conclusions from these numbers.


In 2017 Federer for the first time seems to have turned the tide on outdoor hard courts. We shall see how it goes in the future.

These H2H figures are meaningless anyway. Fed is 5-4 against Nadal on outdoor HC when they both won titles beating each other. Who is going to remember some nadal wins in which he didn't win the trophy?

At the AO, in matches deciding the title, they are 1-1. Who cares that Nadal defeated Fed in 2012 and 2014 when he couldn't even win the title? Fed has won 2 AO titles to Nadal's 0 since Nadal won his only AO title, despite the 2012 and 2014 losses and that's what matters the most.

 

[zep]

These H2H figures are meaningless anyway. Fed is 5-4 against Nadal on outdoor HC when they both won titles beating each other. Who is going to remember some nadal wins in which he didn't win the trophy?

lol now another new criteria. So you mean unless you go on to win the title H2H doesn't matter? No one remembers the exact numbers but if one is talking about H2H every match counts whether it leads to a title or not.

 

[mike danny]

I never discounted 2017, you pick a sentence out of context and start debating and this is not the first time you have done it. My point was before 2017 Nadal clearly had an upper hand over Federer on outdoor hard courts. You have to be in severe denial not to admit that. But in 2017 Federer seems to have found an answer for the first time. Overall it it what it is 8-5 (shanghai was indoor).

Whatever. There is no point in trying to cherry pick everything before 2017.

Nadal's outdoor HC H2H record is irrelevant anyway. Despite having more wins over Fed, Fed has won more titles on outdoor HC beating Nadal than vice versa.

 

[mike danny]

lol now another new criteria. So you mean unless you go on to win the title H2H doesn't matter? No one remembers the exact numbers but if one is talking about H2H every match counts whether it leads to a title or not.

Not all matches are equal. The main purpose in tennis is to win tournaments not beat one individual. So Nadal defeated Federer more times but those wins didn't translate into titles. Whoopedeedoo. He gained nothing.

 

[zep]

Not all matches are equal. The main purpose in tennis is to win tournaments not beat one individual. So Nadal defeated Federer more times but those wins didn't translate into titles. Whoopedeedoo. He gained nothing.

When we are talking about H2H every match matters. You are shifting the goalpost to titles but we aren't talking about that. Everyone knows that Federer is much better than Nadal on hard courts in general.

 

[mike danny]

No he absolutely does not. Only surface where Fed has had clear edge is indoor hard. Numbers back that up. Now after 2017 you could say that outdoor hard and grass were fairly even as far the rivalry goes.

Federer against Nadal on HC: 11-9.

Federer against Nadal on grass: 2-1.

Whether you like it or not, Fed has the edge over Nadal on HC and grass. Spare me of the outdoor-indoor stuff, HC are hardcourts.

 

[mike danny]

When we are talking about H2H every match matters. You are shifting the goalpost to titles but we aren't talking about that. Everyone knows that Federer is much better than Nadal on hard courts in general.

Because you keep propping up that outdoor HC H2H like it means anything. It doesn't translate to Nadal being better on outdoor HC as 2017 has proven.