Your opinions that majority of people do not share?

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Care to explain the bolded?
There's certain decisions that the organisation of the AO must make every year that may or may not benefit a player, and it's very hard to claim impartiality when one of those players is your business partner.

I'm not saying Federer got an unfair advantage, but it's not ideal and it makes the lines blurry in my opinion.

Dope, take PEDs, etc... I don't care. It's all entertainment to me.
This is a pretty one sided view.

- You don't want to allow so much doping that people dope themselves to death
- It's an extra financial barrier to young players who can't afford the better stuff yet
- Players are generally glorified and not put into question
- You don't know if players are treated equally in terms of anti doping efforts, and I'm actually pretty sure that they aren't at all.

That said, I think it shouldn't be so demonised as it is now. That only works counterproductively. It makes all the doping stuff that does happen go underground and shadier. Sports have more to lose by being associated with hit so more is swept under the carpet
 

TheMaestro1990

Hall of Fame
1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009. Wouldn't say it is highly overrated, or even overrated. While Nadal certainly didn't dominate other than the GS tournaments and the clay season, it's still highly impressive. But is it as good as Djokovic's 2011/2015 or Federer's 2006? No.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality. No, not in this era. No way.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured. Oh yes.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky. No. Physically better yes, but as a complete package, no.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass. Agreed.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level. 2013 was extremely impressive too.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon. No.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal. WTF?

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead. Kilometers ahead.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more. Yes, but peak to peak I'd still slightly lean in favor of Djokovic... I think.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s. Federer brought the sport to an entire new level and then Djokovic and Nadal added their own ingredients.
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Controversal (for real) opinions of mine.

-The Nole slam is an inferior achievement to Borgs French Open-Wimbledon doubles.

-Michael Stich had the talent to win about 6 majors.

-Richard Gasquet had the talent to win about 3 majors, even with the big four around

-Nick Kyrgios is a glorified serve bot

-Eugene Bouchard is a shallow a-hole

-Steffi Graf benefited from very poor competition and so is somewhat overrated. With decent competition she'd have won about 15 majors rather than 22.

-Zverev will win majors and TW posters are harsh on him!!

-No woman player could beat a top 1000 ranked man.

-Murray would have won about 6 majors in a different era.

-In majors first and second round matches should be best of three. This is a better way to make early rounds more unpredictable than going back to 16 seeds.
Really disagree on the Djoko Slam
Really disagree on Gasquet
Kind of disagree on Kyrgios. His return game works really weird, but his breaking% is rather average instead of terrible
I don't think many people think Zverev won't win Slams, it's just that Zverev has been a huge ***** lately and he's not worth his top 5 ranking at all lately

Agree on the women, that notion is hilarious
Agree on Murray.
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
There's certain decisions that the organisation of the AO must make every year that may or may not benefit a player, and it's very hard to claim impartiality when one of those players is your business partner.

I'm not saying Federer got an unfair advantage, but it's not ideal and it makes the lines blurry in my opinion.

This is a pretty one sided view.

- You don't want to allow so much doping that people dope themselves to death
- It's an extra financial barrier to young players who can't afford the better stuff yet
- Players are generally glorified and not put into question
- You don't know if players are treated equally in terms of anti doping efforts, and I'm actually pretty sure that they aren't at all.

That said, I think it shouldn't be so demonised as it is now. That only works counterproductively. It makes all the doping stuff that does happen go underground and shadier. Sports have more to lose by being associated with hit so more is swept under the carpet
Doping in sports is waaaayyyy down the list of priorities in drug abuse. Opiod epidemic claimed 42,000+ deaths in the US in 2016 (not sure if 2017 data is available yet but it's still growing).
 

Red Rick

Talk Tennis Guru
Doping in sports is waaaayyyy down the list of priorities in drug abuse. Opiod epidemic claimed 42,000+ deaths in the US in 2016 (not sure if 2017 data is available yet but it's still growing).
Obviously. But if you don't go after doping at all and make it legal athletes will risk their lives in crazy ways to the point that they can't sleep without being woken up every hour to keep the blood flowing.
 

Rosstour

Hall of Fame
1. Fed threw the '12 Gold Medal match to Murray as a gift/confidence builder

2. Fed didn't injure his knee bathing his kid. He either injured it overtraining after yet another loss to Djokovic, or in a fit of anger kicking and stomping around.

3. Nadal has been a habitual PED user for most of his professional career and that is the reason he has missed so much time (cycling off)

4. Serena Williams' story about cutting her foot on glass was BS. After her lengthy absence, she showed up with a new face (not an opinion, the plastic surgery part is indisputable). I also think her absence and multiple pulmonary embolisms are a sign of PED use.
 

73west

Semi-Pro
Really disagree on the Djoko Slam
There are 3 really difficult elements to winning a calendar year grand slam
1. Being talented enough to win on all the different surfaces in the different environments. But even a career grand slam proves that
2. Being consistent enough to do it consecutively. 28 matches in a row. The Novak Slam (I hate when people coin phrases like that, but whatever) proves that
3. Being able to make the quick turnaround from clay to grass, with little time in between. it's tough physically and tactically, and is the hardest part. That's what the Novak Slam doesn't call for.
 
There are 3 really difficult elements to winning a calendar year grand slam
1. Being talented enough to win on all the different surfaces in the different environments. But even a career grand slam proves that
2. Being consistent enough to do it consecutively. 28 matches in a row. The Novak Slam (I hate when people coin phrases like that, but whatever) proves that
3. Being able to make the quick turnaround from clay to grass, with little time in between. it's tough physically and tactically, and is the hardest part. That's what the Novak Slam doesn't call for.
You were supposed to quote @Red Rick
 

eelhc

Hall of Fame
Obviously. But if you don't go after doping at all and make it legal athletes will risk their lives in crazy ways to the point that they can't sleep without being woken up every hour to keep the blood flowing.
I hear ya and I don't want to sound callous but it's all entertainment. How concerned are you about the WWE wrestlers?
 
1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.
Not very controversial. Outside of the claycourt season, he was shaky all year long, but upped his level by the business enf of Wimbledon and USO, so those wins were decent even if the draws were boring.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.
Somewhat controversial. Don't think Murray is more than a 5-6 slam caliber player because he's always had trouble bringing his best in slam finals, but should've won more than three, agreed.

3.Del Potro would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.
Not controversial.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.
Now that's a good one. You have a point, Federer was probably better on hard/grass in 2005 when healthy (clearly better on clay in 2006, no contest), but injury ruined his fall season, so 2006 gets the nod. (Federer definitely played better at AO 05 than 06, so that was bad luck in 05 but good luck in 06.)

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

And the indoor season because 2011 Djokovic was injured by then. Other than that, not miles better, but better for sure, except on grass where 2015ovic's improved serve is more important.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.
Add 2017 as well, he was great regardless of the draw. 2008, 2012, 2007, 2017 are the best four showings.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.
Nadal wasn't ahead in any of the sets he lost and didn't have BPs to go ahead in sets 1 and 3. He did in the 5th, though. That's where one may argue he should've broken, wouldn't know what happened afterwards anyway though.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.
There was before 2005, then Nadal immediately announced himself as great on clay and good on HC, and only took a year to get good on grass as well.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.
In a peak-to-peak comparison, yes. Regarding peak+longevity, as correctly reflected by achievement portfolio, he's got a pretty big advantage over Nadal and a huge one over Djokovic.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.
Djokovic has a clearly better slow HC peak, though they are in the same ballpark. As with everything, Federer has better longevity, even on slow HC (Miami 2017).
 
4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky. No. Physically better yes, but as a complete package, no.
Please do a breakdown on this. Clearly 2006 Federer was better on clay, but was his level better on grass & HC? (When healthy, obviously, so post-USO season should rather be compared to 2004 since Federer was injured in 05.)
 
1. Pete Sampras stands higher than Pancho Gonzales on the list of all time greats.
2. If you p-rick Nadal, he does not bleed.
3. Novak Djokovic is not especially talented at tennis.
4. Rios really wasn't that great, he was never going to be a multiple slam winner in any era.
5. To Fedr or not to Fedr, that is the question.
 
1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009. Wouldn't say it is highly overrated, or even overrated. While Nadal certainly didn't dominate other than the GS tournaments and the clay season, it's still highly impressive. But is it as good as Djokovic's 2011/2015 or Federer's 2006? No.
Not very controversial. Outside of the claycourt season, he was shaky all year long, but upped his level by the business enf of Wimbledon and USO, so those wins were decent even if the draws were boring.
It's overrated in the sense that certain Nadal phants call certain era weak while list 2010 among the strong years. :rolleyes:
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
1. Pete Sampras stands higher than Pancho Gonzales on the list of all time greats.
2. If you p-rick Nadal, he does not bleed.
3. Novak Djokovic is not especially talented at tennis.
4. Rios really wasn't that great, he was never going to be a multiple slam winner in any era.
5. To Fedr or not to Fedr, that is the question.
There's been a lot of statements in this thread I don't agree with but this one is especially stupid. Djokovic is one of the most talented players of all time at winning tennis matches, ergo he must be especially talented at tennis - whether you're able to appreciate it or not.
 
Cats are much smarter than dogs.

Fedr, not fedr. Respect.
My cat can outsmart your dog! ;) And, of course, outevil him easily!! :mad:

Edit: Fedr
My dog is no less evil though.He has an absolute obsession with milk cream packets(which he shouldn't even be given) and we have tried to hide it in millions of places and he has unfailingly found them.

And when he enters 'I am a crazy dog' mode absolutely nothing stops him
 

Shaolin

G.O.A.T.
Get your pitchforks and torches ready: I don't mind Gimelstob's commentary.

He doesn't bother me 1/1000th as much as Shriver, Arias, Carillo and Annicone.

Bring on the hate, Gimel-haters :)
 
There's been a lot of statements in this thread I don't agree with but this one is especially stupid. Djokovic is one of the most talented players of all time at winning tennis matches, ergo he must be especially talented at tennis - whether you're able to appreciate it or not.
I rank him as 6th all time, so I appreciate his ability to deliver results - yet what is his tennis talent, as opposed to athletic talent?

Compare him with other ATGs and he falls considerably short.
 

West Coast Ace

G.O.A.T.
Actually, I think doubles can be extremely entertaining to watch. With two good teams, there will be plenty of long points, with incredible volleying, fantastic retrieving, crazy angles, lobs, etc. The biggest problem with doubles is that the stakes are too low. The outcomes don't matter anymore. When I watch a great doubles match, even if I am rooting for one of the teams, by the next day I no longer care who won. In contrast, with singles you can remember and care about the biggest matches for the rest of your life.
Sorry, sticking to my statement. Just got back (#HumbleBrag) from Dubai - watched the doubles SF and F. Most points are 3 shots or less. The returns that aren’t buried in the bottom of the net or 10 ft long are usually put away by the netman. So out of 90 minutes of tennis, there are less than 10 of the exciting points you described.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I rank him as 6th all time, so I appreciate his ability to deliver results - yet what is his tennis talent, as opposed to athletic talent?

Compare him with other ATGs and he falls considerably short.
Is athletic ability not a component of overall tennis talent?

Are incredible groundstrokes not a tennis talent? What about his returning abilities? He's an excellent shotmaking on the stretch as well. Generally he plays a good drop shot and lob as well.

He's not a McEnroe in terms of in your face talent but you're clearly talking out of your backside right now.
 
Is athletic ability not a component of overall tennis talent?

Are incredible groundstrokes not a tennis talent? What about his returning abilities? He's an excellent shotmaking on the stretch as well. Generally he plays a good drop shot and lob as well.

He's not a McEnroe in terms of in your face talent but you're clearly talking out of your backside right now.
I'm not "talking out of my backside". I am stating an unpopular opinion, as requested by this thread. I have proven how unpopular this opinion is, by the furious responses I have elicited from you.

Novak Djokovic is a man whose success at the highest level of tennis has come only from his ability to run and chase down balls ceaselessly. Not a patch on the giants of tennis talent such as Laver, Federer, McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal and so forth, who have dominated the game for years. He is dominant only due to his merciless desire to run and win. Nothing more.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
I'm not "talking out of my backside". I am stating an unpopular opinion, as requested by this thread. I have proven how unpopular this opinion is, by the furious responses I have elicited from you.

Novak Djokovic is a man whose success at the highest level of tennis has come only from his ability to run and chase down balls ceaselessly. Not a patch on the giants of tennis talent such as Laver, Federer, McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal and so forth, who have dominated the game for years. He is dominant only due to his merciless desire to run and win. Nothing more.
There's unpopular opinions and then there's the ramblings of an idiot. I just tried to remind you that this thread is for the former...
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Nadal didn't fake Australia 2014 and 18 injuries
Nalbandian overrated
US Open is the worst slam, but French is very close behind
Queens>Halle
Berdych has a better game than Murray
Tsonga should've been more successful than wawrinka
Federer is stronger mentally than Nadal
Nadals volleys are heavily overrated
Llodra was more talented than Federer
Nadal peaked on all surfaces before 2010, but at various periods each surface
Bet you just love an argument, don't you? ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
What are views that most people would not agree on?

Mine would be:

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s
Most reasonable people would certainly agree on 2 and 3. Everything else in your list is probably genuinely debateable. :cool:
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm not "talking out of my backside". I am stating an unpopular opinion, as requested by this thread. I have proven how unpopular this opinion is, by the furious responses I have elicited from you.

Novak Djokovic is a man whose success at the highest level of tennis has come only from his ability to run and chase down balls ceaselessly. Not a patch on the giants of tennis talent such as Laver, Federer, McEnroe, Sampras, Edberg, Agassi, Nadal and so forth, who have dominated the game for years. He is dominant only due to his merciless desire to run and win. Nothing more.
Djokovic has a very good BH too, it's not just the running. His return is also top notch. His return suffocates opponents too, not just the running.
 
Safin and Nalbandian are massively overrated.

Berdych is massively underrated.

Federer has more touch than McEnroe.

Federer is better in every component part of the game than Sampras, including serve.

Novak 15 was the ultimate percentage tennis machine. Somewhat reluctantly I would say it was the most efficacious tennis ever played in terms of winning matches.

Nadal 2013 was better than 2010.

Nadal did take PEDs early in his career.

Borg should of and could of won more but the bottom line is he didn’t.

Laver doesn’t make the top 5 in the GOAT debate.

Like Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael the three greatest players of all time all came along at the same time.

Fed has had it marginally easier than the other two.

There is just as much depth in the game today as their was in any period before except from the golden years 2008-2015.

Technology has played a major role in destabilising prior greats and is the real reason why they declined at 28-30 years of age, rather than due to age related decline, which ‘normally happens at 31-33.

Novak’s current slump is mainly mental.

A trend of increased levels of professionalism correlates with a higher standard of play over time. Ergo players are fitter than ever today.

Becker and Lendl are the fathers of the modern game.

Federer is playing more attacking tennis than ever. Is he better than 2007, it hard to say with any surety, but it’s a reasonable point of discussion. It’s his ability to reinvent himself at this late stage in his career which puts him head and shoulders above all others.
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
You did say most reasonable people would agree. ;)
You're right, I did. In fairness to NatF he's normally a reasonable chap. He just gets seized by a huge image of a half-empty glass whenever he hears the name, Andy Murray. It's probably hormonal! ;)
 

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Thankfully I live in the real world where Murray has only managed to scrape together three slams :p
Two of them were straight setters so not too much "scraping". How often do you visit the real world again? ;)
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
@Raining hopes

1.Nadal's 2010 is highly overrated,his best stretch across all surfaces was RG 2008 to AO2009. I agree. Never understood why 2010 is mentioned in the strong era period. It was a weak season overall. No better than 2006 for example.

2.Murray should have won at least five slams by now in this era and more if he belonged to any other,but he just never had the Big 3 mentality. Murray has won exactly as many slams as he deserves in this era. If he had played better in most of his major finals, he would have won more slams. He didn't, so he only deserves 3 slams.

3.Del Porto would have been a constant top 5 player with a slam or two more had he not been injured. Agreed. At least the Big 4 wouldn't have had a relatively easy ride against players outside of their group.

4.Federer of 2005 was better in level than 2006.He was just a bit unlucky. That is indeed an interesting opinion. His competition was also tougher in 2005 than in 2006. Although Nadal himself more than made up for the lack of competition in 2006. If he had brought his 2005 AO level into 2006 AO, he wouldn't have dropped a set.

5.2011 Djokovic is miles better(difficult to beat) than 2015 version except on grass. Agreed. 2011 Djokovic was a monster.

6.Nadal never showed the same kind of invincible form in RG post 2009 injury except in 2012. 2007 version is third best level. Not true. 2013 and 2017 were also impressive.

7.Federer should have won Ao 2009 and Nadal should have won 2007 Wimbledon. Debatable. Nadal really should have won the 5th set in 2007 if you will. Fed though should have won sets 1 and 3 in 2009. One thing is for sure though: both Wimb 2007 an AO 2009 had a terrible 5th set so they are equal in my book.

8.There was never a 'baby' Nadal. There wasn't a baby Nadal to the extent that he was useless before 2008 outside of clay like many VB members want us to believe.

9.Federer is first among equals when it comes to big three not miles ahead. In terms of peak level maybe he isn't that far ahead. But in terms of accomplishments an longevity he clearly is ahead of them by a mile.

10.Djokovic is only slightly ahead of Federer on slower Hardcourts,it is just that with age Federer has changed his style which suits the faster courts much more. Peak to peak I do favor Djokovic slightly on slower HC, his game was tailor made for these conditions. In terms of accomplishments on them, Djokovic is only slightly better than Roger. Roger has 14 titles at AO-IW-Miami, while Novak has 17 at AO-IW-Miami. Basically only Miami keeps Djokovic ahead for now, the slowest HC on tour. At AO and IW Roger is Novak's equal.

11.There has not been any significant change in the sport since early 2000s I believe there has been. For some reason the young players are just garbage and have been garbage for many years. Also the surfaces in the early to mid-2000's were a bit faster than the surfaces afterwards. The surfaces got progressively slower and slower as years went by. For example, Wimb in 2003-2004 was still a bit faster than Wimb post 2006. The USO was faster in 2003-2010 than in 2011 and beyond.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Safin and Nalbandian are massively overrated.

Berdych is massively underrated. He is neither overrated nor underrated. He is right where he deserves to be. He plays exactly the same way and hasn't added any significant changes to his game.

Federer has more touch than McEnroe.

Federer is better in every component part of the game than Sampras, including serve. I think Pete had the better serve.

Novak 15 was the ultimate percentage tennis machine. Somewhat reluctantly I would say it was the most efficacious tennis ever played in terms of winning matches.

Nadal 2013 was better than 2010. Not on grass he wasn't.

Nadal did take PEDs early in his career. I don't think so. Innocent until proven guilty. I just think the guy was a freak athlete from the very start.

Borg should of and could of won more but the bottom line is he didn’t. That's not controversial. That's actually the truth.

Laver doesn’t make the top 5 in the GOAT debate. I think his CYGS puts him up there, simply for the sole reason of still being the only player to win the CYGS in the Open Era. If/when somebody else wins the CYGS and is also in the GOAT debate, maybe then Laver will be taken down a bit.

Like Leonardo, Michelangelo and Raphael the three greatest players of all time all came along at the same time.

Fed has had it marginally easier than the other two. Debatable. Novak has had it pretty easy in 2015-2016 with literally no young players to challenge him and with Rafa in decline mode and Fed being old. Guys like Murray and Stan are also not reasons to say Novak had it harder, because those 2 would hardly trouble Fed. Rafa also has had it easier than Fed at the USO, which accounts for half of his non-clay slams. And he hasn't had any ATG clay-courter to compete against. Also, Djokodal together haven't had any great young players to compete against and this has helped them tremendously. Conversely, Fed has had it incredibly difficult having to deal with 2 ATG's 5 and 6 years younger than him while past his prime. Nadal and Djokovic are not and will most likely never be in this situation due to the terrible younger players.

There is just as much depth in the game today as their was in any period before except from the golden years 2008-2015. Don't understand why 2010 gets lumped together with the golden years. Don't understand why 2014 and 2015 are golden years either. Don't understand why 2007 gets left out.

Technology has played a major role in destabilising prior greats and is the real reason why they declined at 28-30 years of age, rather than due to age related decline, which ‘normally happens at 31-33.

Novak’s current slump is mainly mental. Nope, nobody takes a break this long because of mental reasons.

A trend of increased levels of professionalism correlates with a higher standard of play over time. Ergo players are fitter than ever today. As proven by all these many injuries and withdrawals.

Becker and Lendl are the fathers of the modern game.

Federer is playing more attacking tennis than ever. Is he better than 2007, it hard to say with any surety, but it’s a reasonable point of discussion. It’s his ability to reinvent himself at this late stage in his career which puts him head and shoulders above all others.I I agree a bit here.
I'll just cover some of your points.

Berdych is massively underrated. He is neither overrated nor underrated. He is right where he deserves to be. He plays exactly the same way and hasn't added any significant changes to his game.

Federer is better in every component part of the game than Sampras, including serve. I think Pete had the better serve.

Nadal 2013 was better than 2010. Not on grass he wasn't.

Nadal did take PEDs early in his career. I don't think so. Innocent until proven guilty. I just think the guy was a freak athlete from the very start.

Borg should of and could of won more but the bottom line is he didn’t. That's not controversial. That's actually the truth.

Laver doesn’t make the top 5 in the GOAT debate. I think his CYGS puts him up there, simply for the sole reason of still being the only player to win the CYGS in the Open Era. If/when somebody else wins the CYGS and is also in the GOAT debate, maybe then Laver will be taken down a bit.

Fed has had it marginally easier than the other two. Debatable. Novak has had it pretty easy in 2015-2016 with literally no young players to challenge him and with Rafa in decline mode and Fed being old. Guys like Murray and Stan are also not reasons to say Novak had it harder, because those 2 would hardly trouble Fed. Rafa also has had it easier than Fed at the USO, which accounts for half of his non-clay slams. And he hasn't had any ATG clay-courter to compete against. Also, Djokodal together haven't had any great young players to compete against and this has helped them tremendously. Conversely, Fed has had it incredibly difficult having to deal with 2 ATG's 5 and 6 years younger than him while past his prime. Nadal and Djokovic are not and will most likely never be in this situation due to the terrible younger players.

There is just as much depth in the game today as their was in any period before except from the golden years 2008-2015. Don't understand why 2010 gets lumped together with the golden years. Don't understand why 2014 and 2015 are golden years either. Don't understand why 2007 gets left out.

Novak’s current slump is mainly mental. Nope, nobody takes a break this long because of mental reasons.

A trend of increased levels of professionalism correlates with a higher standard of play over time. Ergo players are fitter than ever today. As proven by all these many injuries and withdrawals.

Federer is playing more attacking tennis than ever. Is he better than 2007, it hard to say with any surety, but it’s a reasonable point of discussion. It’s his ability to reinvent himself at this late stage in his career which puts him head and shoulders above all others. I agree with the reinventing part.
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
I think only 2006 was the only relatively weak season during Fed's domination. The other seasons were all decent to good.

2007 deserves to be lumped with 2008-2012, the supposed strong era.

I don't think Djokovic is mentally tougher than Fed. That's a myth.

Nadal's mental strength is overstated.

Wawrinka and Murray are as accomplished as they are because of Djokovic and Djokovic only. Against Fed they wouldn't have been better than Hewitt and Roddick.

I don't think Murray is better than Roddick peak for peak at Wimb. I think he simply had the fortune of not dealing with prime/peak Fed which allowed him to rack up 2 Wimb titles.
 
Last edited:

Mainad

Bionic Poster
Well he was down two sets to love in one of those runs :p
Nope, he was never down in any of his runs. The first time he was up 2 sets to love not down but had to finish it off in a 5th set. That huge half-empty glass is playing tricks with your historical recall again! :p
 

mike danny

Talk Tennis Guru
Nope, he was never down in any of his runs. The first time he was up 2 sets to love not down but had to finish it off in a 5th set. That huge half-empty glass is playing tricks with your historical recall again! :p
He was down 2 sets to love against Verdasco at 2013 Wimb.
 

NatF

Bionic Poster
Nope, he was never down in any of his runs. The first time he was up 2 sets to love not down but had to finish it off in a 5th set. That huge half-empty glass is playing tricks with your historical recall again! :p
He was down two sets to love against Dasco man.
 
Top