Wimbledon 2014 - June 23rd to July 6th

[zep1706]

Congrats to Djokovic for becoming number 1 again. Just goes to show how hard it is to stay there for long' date=' particularly hard when you win mostly on one surface and then get dumped out in the others. Hopefully Djo will build enough of a lead by the time the next dust bowl slam comes around.[/quote'] Nadal has 2 slams and 1 final of the last 4 slams (1 year period) and 4th round at the other. He is just competing with an equally good player who wins a lot of masters ( Djokovic has only 2 fewer masters than Federer 19 vs 21) for the #1 rank. That is the most important factor. And it shows that #1 rank depends on the competition. In an era filled with Roddick, Hewitt, Safin, Ljubicic it is much easier to remain number 1 for a long time, then in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc. Even Stan has stepped it up this year.

[zep1706]

will roger federer ever win another GS again?

He needs a bit of help from the draw at slams other than Wimbledon. But this was his best chance to add another. I won't count him out till he's retired. A slice of luck like the 2009 French open and he would gobble it up.

[zep1706]

Got to love the subtle trolling from the Rafa fans. Federer played at a very high level but not quite his peak 2003-2007 well' date=' quite a difference really. [/quote'] Please include 2008 Wimbledon too. He played better in 2008 grass season than 2007. He did not lose his serve even once before the final in 2008, starting from Halle. Both the finals against Nadal in 2007 and 2008 were very close. It was fair that they won 1 each. On grass Federer at his peak would beat any version of Djokovic 9 out of 10 times. I have no doubt about that. But a prime Djokovic would have given him equal contest on hard courts.

[Sachin=GOD]

Well played Roger :clap:

[Sachin=GOD]

Hopefully he will win at least one more slam.

[zep1706]

Nadal is a clay man not a grass man. So winning 2 here is a huge achievement.

Really? Nadal has 5 straight Wimbledon finals from 2006-2011 (didn't play in 2009). That can't be fluke. He played incredibly well against the so called "peak" Federer in 2007 and 2008. His knees did not allow him to play freely in 2012 and 2013. This year he just ran into a beast serving bombs after playing through a tough draw already. On grass that can happen to anybody. Even Federer has faced such opposition. 2010 (Falla, Berdych), 2011 (Tsonga), 2012 (Benneateu), 2013 (Stakhovsky). It is the nature of the surface. You are being grossly unfair to Nadal. Nadal probably has the second best net game after Federer among the top players and he had incredible movement on grass till 2011.

[Dil Dil India]

Nadal has 2 slams and 1 final of the last 4 slams (1 year period) and 4th round at the other. He is just competing with an equally good player who wins a lot of masters ( Djokovic has only 2 fewer masters than Federer 19 vs 21) for the #1 rank. That is the most important factor. And it shows that #1 rank depends on the competition. In an era filled with Roddick' date=' Hewitt, Safin, Ljubicic it is much easier to remain number 1 for a long time, then in an era of Federer, Nadal, Djokovic, Murray etc. Even Stan has stepped it up this year.[/quote'] Look man you are a reasonable poster and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you have said here, but without wanting to get into some long winded debate, I'll just say sometimes this gets overstated particularly by blokes like Raghav who run into hiding and avoid answering questions on what the slam tally is at if we count after Nadal won his first. For starters, I don't rate Murray as highly as a lot of you do. How many great slam matches has he had against Nadal Fed and Djo? Djokovic is an interesting case. I don't see him yet as an ATG player like Nadal is. He played like Superman for one year and won virtually half his slams in that year. Definitely better than Roddick et al but really he isn't really on Fed or Nadal's level if you look at it and I don't mean HTH...even here it was a close run thing against a geriatric in tennis terms and that after nearly being dumped twice by upcoming players. He is very good and played brilliantly but he tends to get overrated sometimes with this whole era argument. Including Federer in this era is also a bit disingenuous because his twilight coincided with the peak of Nadal and Djo..there is nothing to suggest that say, Nadal would have been able to keep up this level in the 2003-2007 period (indeed he won his first slam during that period)...not when he has been losing to Rasool and Kygrios. And using this same absurd argument I could say Nadal has had it easy....he has never HTH had a problem with Federer that I accept, but he still played Federer more during his own peak than vice versa, got a Djokovic on a rampage in 2011 and wasn't able to touch him...something a 30 year old Federer managed with ease and outside of that 2011 Djokovic hasn't been a truly great player... I think we could all do without the subtle trolling....I am talking in general here. We have just had a great match. We should leave it at that.

[Dil Dil India]

Please include 2008 Wimbledon too. He played better in 2008 grass season than 2007. He did not lose his serve even once before the final in 2008, starting from Halle. Both the finals against Nadal in 2007 and 2008 were very close. It was fair that they won 1 each. On grass Federer at his peak would beat any version of Djokovic 9 out of 10 times. I have no doubt about that. But a prime Djokovic would have given him equal contest on hard courts.

Nadal played brilliantly in that final..no questions there. I didn't exclude it just because Nadal won or something mate. I agree...a peak Federer would blow away Djo on grass and I am inclined to say even on clay (not quite blow away there but you get what I am saying)..hard courts yes 50-50 for sure.

[vvvslaxman]

Really? Nadal has 5 straight Wimbledon finals from 2006-2011 (didn't play in 2009). That can't be fluke. He played incredibly well against the so called "peak" Federer in 2007 and 2008. His knees did not allow him to play freely in 2012 and 2013. This year he just ran into a beast serving bombs after playing through a tough draw already. On grass that can happen to anybody. Even Federer has faced such opposition. 2010 (Falla, Berdych), 2011 (Tsonga), 2012 (Benneateu), 2013 (Stakhovsky). It is the nature of the surface. You are being grossly unfair to Nadal. Nadal probably has the second best net game after Federer among the top players and he had incredible movement on grass till 2011.

I thought I was complementing him lol

[Dil Dil India]

Can't really use the knee as some excuse mate come on, if we split hairs like that Federer played the whole of last year with an injured back and we are happy enough to take his early slam exits at face value. It is the nature of the beast.

[zep1706]

Look man you are a reasonable poster and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you have said here, but without wanting to get into some long winded debate, I'll just say sometimes this gets overstated particularly by blokes like Raghav who run into hiding and avoid answering questions on what the slam tally is at if we count after Nadal won his first. For starters, I don't rate Murray as highly as a lot of you do. How many great slam matches has he had against Nadal Fed and Djo? Djokovic is an interesting case. I don't see him yet as an ATG player like Nadal is. He played like Superman for one year and won virtually half his slams in that year. Definitely better than Roddick et al but really he isn't really on Fed or Nadal's level if you look at it and I don't mean HTH...even here it was a close run thing against a geriatric in tennis terms and that after nearly being dumped twice by upcoming players. He is very good and played brilliantly but he tends to get overrated sometimes with this whole era argument. Including Federer in this era is also a bit disingenuous because his twilight coincided with the peak of Nadal and Djo..there is nothing to suggest that say, Nadal would have been able to keep up this level in the 2003-2007 period (indeed he won his first slam during that period)...not when he has been losing to Rasool and Kygrios. And using this same absurd argument I could say Nadal has had it easy....he has never HTH had a problem with Federer that I accept, but he still played Federer more during his own peak than vice versa, got a Djokovic on a rampage in 2011 and wasn't able to touch him...something a 30 year old Federer managed with ease and outside of that 2011 Djokovic hasn't been a truly great player... I think we could all do without the subtle trolling....I am talking in general here. We have just had a great match. We should leave it at that.

The main competition for #1 rank is from Novak and with 7 slams he is definitely a great player already.

[vvvslaxman]

Federe style of play will allow him for couple more years. With experience he has become smarter . Some of the placements today was pure instinct . He may have couple more shots at the Wimbledon.

[Dil Dil India]

Yes but he won 4 of those in the space of one year when he played possibly the best ever tennis I have seen and I have seen a lot of Nadal and Federer too. He couldn't buy a win against him then. Should I then use the absurd argument and say he has had it easy because when Djo was at his absolute zenith he couldn't do anything, didn't play Federer that much during his absolute peak outside of clay.....my point unlike many here is not to denigrate Nadal or anyone...one can twist arguments to favour one over the other a lot of the time. The point is, Federer's slam tally is not a result of weak competition and the insinuation was definitely there. As far as the number 1 ranking goes, whatever the argument about competition, the difference is most certainly not 300 vs 140 or whatever it is.

[zep1706]

Look man you are a reasonable poster and I don't necessarily disagree with everything you have said here, but without wanting to get into some long winded debate, I'll just say sometimes this gets overstated particularly by blokes like Raghav who run into hiding and avoid answering questions on what the slam tally is at if we count after Nadal won his first. For starters, I don't rate Murray as highly as a lot of you do. How many great slam matches has he had against Nadal Fed and Djo? Djokovic is an interesting case. I don't see him yet as an ATG player like Nadal is. He played like Superman for one year and won virtually half his slams in that year. Definitely better than Roddick et al but really he isn't really on Fed or Nadal's level if you look at it and I don't mean HTH...even here it was a close run thing against a geriatric in tennis terms and that after nearly being dumped twice by upcoming players. He is very good and played brilliantly but he tends to get overrated sometimes with this whole era argument. Including Federer in this era is also a bit disingenuous because his twilight coincided with the peak of Nadal and Djo..there is nothing to suggest that say, Nadal would have been able to keep up this level in the 2003-2007 period (indeed he won his first slam during that period)...not when he has been losing to Rasool and Kygrios. And using this same absurd argument I could say Nadal has had it easy....he has never HTH had a problem with Federer that I accept, but he still played Federer more during his own peak than vice versa, got a Djokovic on a rampage in 2011 and wasn't able to touch him...something a 30 year old Federer managed with ease and outside of that 2011 Djokovic hasn't been a truly great player... I think we could all do without the subtle trolling....I am talking in general here. We have just had a great match. We should leave it at that.

The main competition for #1 rank is from Novak and with 7 slams and 2 year end #1 (possibly 3 this year) he is definitely a great player already and will probably end up getting 10+ slams making him a tier 1 great. Both he and Nadal have had to fight it out among themselves for the #1 rank. Murray is not a factor there, i agree but that hardly matters. The bottom line is it is much harder to sustain the #1 rank now. You blink and it's gone. You are being chased at all times. I don't see how anyone can disagree with that. There is no subtle trolling. That is the truth. I don't know if Nadal would have been able to show similar dominance in 2004-2007, probably not considering his injury breaks. But I am sure as hell that had Federer competed against a prime Djokovic and near prime Nadal (any version since 2008) he would not have won 11 out of 12 non clay slams in that period. That is one of the reasons why I started liking Nadal in the first place, because he was the only one who had what it takes to compete and win against Federer. The rest of the field was just not good enough, both game wise and mentally. So a lot do depend on the competition. Both Nadal ad Djokovic have had to go through better competition to achieve whatever they have. I have no doubt about that.

[vvvslaxman]

If djoko I learns the art of coming up good on big points his results will be better. He has to expand his game a bit.

[zep1706]

As far as the number 1 ranking goes, whatever the argument about competition, the difference is most certainly not 300 vs 140 or whatever it is.

Well Lendl has 270 weeks at #1 too. He won only 8 slams.

[Dil Dil India]

Okay, so basically Djokovic and Nadal were each other's biggest rivals....fine. Add up their number 1 weeks tally and without checking it would still be 300 vs 240 odd in favour of Fed :) What anyone may or may not have done is pure conjecture. A 30 year old Federer stopped a Djo at his absolute peak...something that even a peak Nadal couldn't do(he had his best year in 2010 remember)...so we really can't be getting into ifs and buts here. It is what it is. You have your opinion, I have mine.

[zep1706]

I thought I was complementing him lol

Complement or not you were factually incorrect. Nadal right from the young age was good on grass. He played the semi final at the boys championship in 2002, his first appearance at the age of 16. Next year he competed in the pro circuit became the youngest player since Borris Becker to reach third round at Wimbledon. Did not play in 2004 due to a foot injury and played the final from 2006-2011. Just because he was poor in the last two year ( I don't consider this year as poor as IMO he played well enough), does not make him poor on grass in general. His grass records are still second only to Federer in the last 10 years.

[zep1706]

Okay, so basically Djokovic and Nadal were each other's biggest rivals....fine. Add up their number 1 weeks tally and without checking it would still be 300 vs 240 odd in favour of Fed :) What anyone may or may not have done is pure conjecture. A 30 year old Federer stopped a Djo at his absolute peak...something that even a peak Nadal couldn't do(he had his best year in 2010 remember)...so we really can't be getting into ifs and buts here. It is what it is. You have your opinion, I have mine.

I am not taking anything away from Federer, he was incredibly consistent. He is consistent even now in beating the lesser players, much better than Nadal in that department. But comparing weeks at #1 you do have to consider the competition.

[Dil Dil India]

Well Lendl has 270 weeks at #1 too. He won only 8 slams.

And that invalidates a bloke with 300 plus weeks and 17 titles, how? How is it relevant at all? It's like saying he has 5 end of year titles and Nadal has none out of the blue. And 8 is only for Lendl but Djo 'with 7 is already a great player'. Interesting.