Weakest WTF group of all time?

[tennisaddict]

It's ok, if u don't understand some players can actually improve significantly as they get to 30.

No point talking to somebody who doesn't understand this.

How come there is no historical evidence to this (Agassi is a different case) ? It is not without a reason that this is happening for the first time.

Tennis is a physical sport and not like chess that somebody decided overnight that they are going go improve and do it.

Let us assume Stan fails next year. Which 30+ player (leaving aside Novak and Andy) do you see succeed and winning 3-4 majors in the next 2-3 years.

The era of Stan, Ferrer and Berdych making the top 5 is an anomaly whichever way you slice and dice it

 

[mike danny]

Nole won 4 In a row, fed didn't, his 2014-16 clearly better than Feds 2003-5, while competition is weaker in the latter.

34 fed > 34 Agassi. For gods sake, fed has more than double Agassi achievements! Not even close.. Agassi to me is 2nd tier great, who gets dominated by tier 1 greats no matter what his own age is.

Then "broke back" Murray is better than Hewitt or Rod. Stan is at least as good as them.

The bolded one is debatable.

As for your second part, Fed has double the achievements of Agassi because he is a better player overall. All those achievements were obtained before the age of 34. It doesn't mean at 34 alone he is neccesarily tougher competition than Agassi at 34. They both could not beat the younger all time great in slams so I don't see why Fed is tougher competition. In best of 3 he is as he did beat Djokovic more times than Agassi beat Fed. In best of 5 however they are the same IMO. There is not much separating them.

 

[mike danny]

It's ok, if u don't understand some players can actually improve significantly as they get to 30.

No point talking to somebody who doesn't understand this.

Stan this year actually had a worse season than 2015. He really should have lost to Dan Evans at the USO and we would not even be talking about Stan right now. He was 1 point away from finishing this season slamless. Not to mention he has just been surpassed by the younger Raonic in the rankings.

Berdych is 31 and barely in the top 10 and could not even qualify for the WTF.

Ferrer is 34 and he is out of the top 10.

Tsonga is 31 and not in the top 10.

What improvements have these players made?

Don't even try to bring up guys like Karlovic, Lopez and Cuevas, guys who aren't and were never slam contenders to begin with. Or even masters contenders.

 

[skynyrd1611]

That group contains only 1 slam winner, not 2.

Gonzo and Puerta were slam finalsts, Gaudio was a slam champion and Davy as a whole was multi GS SFist.

You are comparing all 4 players in that group, whilst only 3 and ignoring Djokovic out of his group.

 

[Chanwan]

Tbh Raonic is far from weak. Monfils stunk it up in the group pretty much, but Thiem has done better than expected and Djokovic looks ready to take back number 1. WTF RR would have been a lot more interesting if Wawrinka had been in this group instead of Raonic. Thiem would have had half a chance against Wawrinka. Raonic might have been able to pick off Nishikori.

Cilic and Monfils have dissappointed. Thiem much better than expected; beat Monfils, gave Raonic a good breaker, beat Djokovic in breaker. Djokovic, Murray, Wawrinka, Nishikori, and Raonic are basically in peak form. WTF seems a whole lot better than the last two years. I'd say except for possibly Djokovic, that Nishikori, Murray, and Wawrinka are decidely better than last year. The two SFs last year were walkovers. We'll see who comes through this year. A lot on the line tomorrow.

 

[abmk]

Lol u can't just pick a 3 year period for Nole but not for fed!

2003-2005 was even more joke competition where fed only had 34 year old Agassi, then Hewitt Roddick safin. Lol. 12 majors in total.

34 fed, Murray and Stan clearly stronger than the previous group. 23 majors in total and counting.

Funny thing is fed had easier competition in that 3 year period but achieved less than Novak in his. Lol.

lol, 03-05 >> 14-16 ..

If it has been fed on the other side and not djoko,stan may have ended up with 0 slams, not 3.

03-05, fed had hewitt, roddick, nadal, safin, older agassi, nalbandian, ferrero, coria ...

 

[InsideOut900]

If it has been fed on the other side and not djoko,stan may have ended up with 0 slams, not 3.

He would still probably win RG 04 and maybe AO 03 in his 2014/2015 form.
I agree that he wouldn't win USO,but Stan was no mug during the last 3-4 years.

 

[abmk]

He would still probably win RG 04 and maybe AO 03 in his 2014/2015 form.
I agree that he wouldn't win USO,but Stan was no mug during the last 3-4 years.

yeah. But I was specifically referring to a situation if he had faced prime fed instead of prime djoko.

 

[NatF]

He would still probably win RG 04 and maybe AO 03 in his 2014/2015 form.
I agree that he wouldn't win USO,but Stan was no mug during the last 3-4 years.

Depends on the draw, if Wawrinka made the final of the FO 2004 I would bet on him but there were plenty of threats early on.

Stan was definitely no mug the last few years, I do think some of Federer's contemporaries would have broken through the past few years where as in Federer's era they had a brick wall in the form of Federer.

 

[OhYes]

Bump

 

[PeterHo]

lol, 03-05 >> 14-16 ..

If it has been fed on the other side and not djoko,stan may have ended up with 0 slams, not 3.

03-05, fed had hewitt, roddick, nadal, safin, older agassi, nalbandian, ferrero, coria ...

What nadal?

 

[PeterHo]

Stan this year actually had a worse season than 2015. He really should have lost to Dan Evans at the USO and we would not even be talking about Stan right now. He was 1 point away from finishing this season slamless. Not to mention he has just been surpassed by the younger Raonic in the rankings.

Berdych is 31 and barely in the top 10 and could not even qualify for the WTF.

Ferrer is 34 and he is out of the top 10.

Tsonga is 31 and not in the top 10.

What improvements have these players made?

Don't even try to bring up guys like Karlovic, Lopez and Cuevas, guys who aren't and were never slam contenders to begin with. Or even masters contenders.

So u agree Stan didn't iMprove when he hit 29, 30?

That's OK, mate. End of convo.

The other players u mentioned are irrelevant. I wasn't talking about them, at all.

 

[PeterHo]

The bolded one is debatable.

As for your second part, Fed has double the achievements of Agassi because he is a better player overall. All those achievements were obtained before the age of 34. It doesn't mean at 34 alone he is neccesarily tougher competition than Agassi at 34. They both could not beat the younger all time great in slams so I don't see why Fed is tougher competition. In best of 3 he is as he did beat Djokovic more times than Agassi beat Fed. In best of 5 however they are the same IMO. There is not much separating them.

Who would u pick between 34 fed and 34 Agassi? I think u can answer this urself.

AO
RG
WB
US

Im pretty sure fed wins more often than not....

And not just the slams , also look at year round performance, consistency, health...

Not even close really.

 

[abmk]

What nadal?

you do know nadal won RG in 2005, won Rome, MC, a ****load of other CC titles, won Canada, Madrid ....he won 11 titles that season, his highest ever ?

oh wait,you started watching in 11, so you don't.

 

[abmk]

Who would u pick between 34 fed and 34 Agassi? I think u can answer this urself.

AO
RG
WB
US

Im pretty sure fed wins more often than not....

And not just the slams , also look at year round performance, consistency, health...

Not even close really.

AO - agassi
wim - federer
RG - doesn't matter, neither of them are winning or a threat
US - 2004+2005 agassi > 2014+2015 federer

outside of the slams - fed

 

[PeterHo]

How come there is no historical evidence to this (Agassi is a different case) ? It is not without a reason that this is happening for the first time.

Tennis is a physical sport and not like chess that somebody decided overnight that they are going go improve and do it.

Let us assume Stan fails next year. Which 30+ player (leaving aside Novak and Andy) do you see succeed and winning 3-4 majors in the next 2-3 years.

The era of Stan, Ferrer and Berdych making the top 5 is an anomaly whichever way you slice and dice it

I said some players.

Agassi has done it.

Why not Stan?

U answered ur own question.

What's the chance of Stan bucking the trend and iMproved as he aged, or the whole competition (including Novak and Murray!) played like 30 rankings weaker?

Lol.

 

[PeterHo]

you do know nadal won RG in 2005, won Rome, MC, a ****load of other CC titles, won Canada, Madrid ....he won 11 titles that season, his highest ever ?

oh wait,you started watching in 11, so you don't.

Lol yeah fed played nadal once in the 12 slams during that period, great competition .

Lol.

 

[mike danny]

So u agree Stan didn't iMprove when he hit 29, 30?

That's OK, mate. End of convo.

The other players u mentioned are irrelevant. I wasn't talking about them, at all.

He definitely improved at 29-30. But I don't feel he improved further this year, which is why he had a worse 2016 than 2015.

Fed also was quite good at 30-31,sometimes even better than Stan. We have yet to see Stan perform at 33-34. Although it won't matter by then because Novak won't be in his prime anymore.

 

[mike danny]

Who would u pick between 34 fed and 34 Agassi? I think u can answer this urself.

AO
RG
WB
US

Im pretty sure fed wins more often than not....

And not just the slams , also look at year round performance, consistency, health...

Not even close really.

At that age neither was a threat in slams to a younger prime ATG so at the end of the day it is irrelevant.

Fed was more of a threat in best of 3 than Agassi though.

 

[PeterHo]

AO - agassi
wim - federer
RG - doesn't matter, neither of them are winning or a threat
US - 2004+2005 agassi > 2014+2015 federer

outside of the slams - fed

Conveniently ignored RG lol.

Pretty sure 34 fed is overall better than 34 Agassi.

 

[mike danny]

Conveniently ignored RG lol.

Pretty sure 34 fed is overall better than 34 Agassi.

He didn't forget it. Both players were pretty much done on clay at that age.

 

[abmk]

Conveniently ignored RG lol.

Pretty sure 34 fed is overall better than 34 Agassi.

"RG - doesn't matter, neither of them are winning or a threat" ..maybe you ought to learn to read better.

overall, including consistency,fed is a bit better, but at the slams ? Agassi was the arguably the better one.

 

[PeterHo]

He definitely improved at 29-30. But I don't feel he improved further this year, which is why he had a worse 2016 than 2015.

Fed also was quite good at 30-31,sometimes even better than Stan. We have yet to see Stan perform at 33-34. Although it won't matter by then because Novak won't be in his prime anymore.

Agreed.

 

[abmk]

Lol yeah fed played nadal once in the 12 slams during that period, great competition .

Lol.

he played him 3 times in that time period, which is for instance 3 times more than what nadal-murray played from 12-13.

and importantly denied fed a slam ..

far more worthy than djoko facing muzza in 15-16 at RG or nadal himself in RG 15 ..

 

[PeterHo]

"RG - doesn't matter, neither of them are winning or a threat" ..maybe you ought to learn to read better.

overall, including consistency,fed is a bit better, but at the slams ? Agassi was the arguably the better one.

Would peak 34 Agassi beat peak 34 fed? Which match vs which?

 

[PeterHo]

he played him 3 times in that time period, which is for instance 3 times more than what nadal-murray played from 12-13.

Wow 3 times in 3 years...

 

[abmk]

Would peak 34 Agassi beat peak 34 fed? Which match vs which?

AO - agassi beats fed
USO 04 agassi vs USO 15 fed -- tossup
USO 04/05 agassi vs USO 14 fed - agassi wins

wimbledon - fed wins

 

[abmk]

Wow 3 times in 3 years...

nadal-murray meeting 0 times in 2 years, wow , strong era !

 

[PeterHo]

AO - agassi beats fed
USO 04 agassi vs USO 15 fed -- tossup
USO 04/05 agassi vs USO 14 fed - agassi wins

wimbledon - fed wins

AO _ are u sure? Rmb surface has slowed, fed would have done better on the same surface Agassi played. Prime Fed has done worse at AO on plexicushion...
WB fed, by a mile
RG fed
US u answered this urself, toss up in peak performance, if anything the surface has slowed, fed playing in 04 US surface would have a better performance than his 14/15.

So in the 4 slams, fed is still overall better.

 

[PeterHo]

nadal-murray meeting 0 times in 2 years, wow , strong era !

Which era r u talking about?

Comparing Djokovic and fed here. Nothing to do with nadal Murray rivalry.

 

[abmk]

AO _ are u sure? Rmb surface has slowed, fed would have done better on the same surface Agassi played. Prime Fed has done worse at AO on plexicushion...

irrelevant, talk was about actual strength of agassi in 2004/05 at the AO compared to fed in 2014/15 ...agassi easily ..

agassi barely lost to safin in 5 in a titanic clash in AO 04 and lost to peaking fed in 05. fed OTOH went down tamely to nadal in 14 in a mediocre performance and to frikkin seppi in 15.

if you want to go hypothetical, I'm not sure fed in 14/15 would've done better than agassi did at that age on rebound ace. Peak to peak, I think fed was better on rebound ace , but not necessarily at older age. That'd be Agassi.

US u answered this urself, toss up in peak performance, if anything the surface has slowed, fed playing in 04 US surface would have a better performance than his 14/15.

again, not relevant to what we are talking about. What is relevant is actual strength in those respective years.

If you want to insist on hypothetical, if USO in 15 was at 04-05 speed, there's a good chance Nole would've lost the USO 15 final. As it is he needed the heavier, cooler conditions in the evening and it was still a close match.

 

[abmk]

Which era r u talking about?

Comparing Djokovic and fed here. Nothing to do with nadal Murray rivalry.

I'm talking about 2 of the top 4 players (nadal and murray ) in the so called strong era in 12-13.

 

[tennisaddict]

I said some players.

Agassi has done it.

Why not Stan?

U answered ur own question.

What's the chance of Stan bucking the trend and iMproved as he aged, or the whole competition (including Novak and Murray!) played like 30 rankings weaker?

Lol.

2 players in the history of ATP. Solid proof.

 

[Achilles82]

Does Djok's group take this? Not only is it the easiest possible numerically (20, highest possible) the players dont look like they shouldnt of even qualified.

Can anyone think of a weaker group at the tour finals?

Yes, Djokovic had the easiest group, he plays in the weakest era, and Federer played in the toughest groups in the strongest era. Jeez...