Wimbledon 2014 - June 23rd to July 6th

[Bleed-Blue]

You ain't seen the politics section yet...

I don't want to

[zep1706]

The fact that he has 'only' 5 non clay slams even now seems to strengthen my case.

It only weakens your case. Let me show you how. Nadal has played 11 grand slam finals outside clay and his record is 5-6 and if we exclude this year's Australian Open as an aberration for the obvious reason, he has lost all those 5 finals against either Federer (2 Wimbledon) and Djokovic ( 1 each of Wimbledon, US open and Aus open). Now imagine him playing a 35 years old Agassi, Hewitt, Baghdatis, Roddick etc like Federer did in those slam finals. I am sure he would have won a lot more of them. The same applies to Novak as well. He has had to play all 14 of his grand slam finals against Fed/Nadal/Murray and his record of 7-7 is very good when you consider that. He has won 50% of the slam finals against other great players. There is absolutely no question that Nadal and Djokovic have had to face tougher competition to win their slams.

[Raghav_12]

Look no one is arguing that Roddick and Safin were better players than Nadal and Djokovic, that is not in question (of course Roddick circa 2003-2004 on grass is a far from straightforward prospect but we'll let that slide). Firstly, the problem is we're ever ready to point out Federer would have struggled to hold on to that number one spot for as long as he did if he played in this supposedly strong era. While that looks all fine and dandy, it is a superficial argument that lacks substance when you consider: 1)It is all hypothetical This is the biggest problem with the argument. How do we know what would or could have happened? In life, there are no certainties except death and taxes. The Nadal fans love to trumpet the H2H record against Federer but NEVER mention his own inferior H2H record against Davdenko or Roddick (yes Federer's whipping boy) holding a superior H2H record against Djokovic. Yes, I see the counter arguments already so I'll get to my second point. 2)Accounting for only the peaks of Nadal and Djokovic This is another big flaw with the reasoning. We are happy enough to try and pick holes in Federer's number 1 ranking record but we don't factor that to make the argument objective we should also factor in that Federer would have eaten into the number of weeks of Djokovic and Nadal had he peaked at the same time as those two. Consider this : we don't know if Nadal and Djokovic could have usurped Federer from the number 1 spot at his peak(indeed Nadal was second best for ages despite winning his first slam in 2005 itself), but we do know that a 31 year old Federer moved past both Djokovic and Nadal in 2012 (who had their respective best years in 2011 and 2010) to claim the number 1 ranking. Who benefited more then? As aforementioned, add up both Nadal's and Djokovich's tallies and they are still short by a long, long way. They won't beat Federer COMBINED by too much (if at all) as far as that record goes, that is for certain. 3)You could use hypothetical arguments to weaken any player's case Starting from a certain Donald Bradman, you could use all sorts of arguments to weaken any player's case. I am almost certain that Nadal would have struggled on faster Wimbledon and Australian Open Courts, there is no doubt in my mind about that. The fact that he has 'only' 5 non clay slams even now seems to strengthen my case. Do I then use it to say Nadal has been lucky he has been part of this era? Would have he won Wimbledon by beating Sampras on grass in the late 90s? I don't know. It is fascinating to debate ifs and buts but in the end it is what it is. Just for the sake of it, IMO if the peaks of Nadal, Federer and Djokvic had directly coincided say for a 4 year period, the results would be : Aus Open - 3 Djokovic, 1 Federer French Open - 4 Nadal Wimbledon - 4 Federer US Open - tough I would go 2 Djokovic, 1 Federer, 1 Nadal Of course it may seem like I deliberately gave Federer one extra slam but it is my honest opinion, someone else's could differ. Of course the above would also depend on who faces whom. At their absolute peaks....I would back Federer to win more against Djokovic than lose, Djokovic to do the same against Nadal and Nadal to do the same against Federer....in fact this happened circa 2011 when grandpa Fed stopped Novak in God mode but couldn't beat Nadal as usual. All said and done, we are lucky to have witnessed 3 of the best tennis players of this era. Here's hoping for more.

Lol..Djokovic overall has one US Open but would have 2 if all 3 had peaked together. What kind of logic is that.

[zep1706]

Consider this : we don't know if Nadal and Djokovic could have usurped Federer from the number 1 spot at his peak(indeed Nadal was second best for ages despite winning his first slam in 2005 itself), but we do know that a 31 year old Federer moved past both Djokovic and Nadal in 2012 (who had their respective best years in 2011 and 2010) to claim the number 1 ranking

Nadal was absent from the tour when Federer got that #1 rank in 2012. Federer is a great player and it should not surprise anyone that he was able to get back the #1 rank from Djokovic for a few months. Djokovic still regained the year end #1 though. You should only take a look at the ranking points during Federer's peak. It was not like Federer was winning all the masters. But there was not a single consistent player who could challenge him for the #1 spot. Murray has more masters than the likes of Hewitt and Roddick. Nadal was able to go up to #2 at 19 years of age in his first serious year in the pro circuit in 2005 and stayed there till 2008 when he became #1 and his peak years started at 22. Federer was able concentrate on the slams in his peak knowing fully well that he did not have to care about the #1 rank at all, because with 2 slams each year he would be #1 easily. Right now that's not the case. Neither Nadal nor Djokovic can relax even for a bit, Djokovic has won 19 masters compared to 21 of Federer. That should tell you how consistent he has been. Even if Nadal wins the US open this year, he might not finish #1 this year. In any era before this 2 slams a year makes you an automatic #1. Look at Sampras, he stayed there for 6 years that way. He has only 11 master (super 9 at that time). In 1996 Sampras won 1 slam and the year end championship and no other major tournament and that was good enough for him to remain year end #1. That is not possible now. The relative point distribution has not changed.

[zep1706]

This is the biggest problem with the argument. How do we know what would or could have happened? In life, there are no certainties except death and taxes. The Nadal fans love to trumpet the H2H record against Federer but NEVER mention his own inferior H2H record against Davdenko or Roddick (yes Federer's whipping boy) holding a superior H2H record against Djokovic. Yes, I see the counter arguments already so I'll get to my second point.

Nadal is 7-3 against Roddick, how is that inferior? Davydenko is slightly ahead 6-5 but none of those include any slam win. There is a vast difference between 23-10 and 6-5. :giggle:

[Dil Dil India]

Right cherry pick parts of my posts and also leave aside Stan for 'obvious' reasons and everything is fine. Come on zep, I expect that from blokes like Raghav who run away whenever they are confronted with facts, not you! Look mate, this is going in circles. Nadal won his first GS in 2005. I think after that GS they are 13-13 or something....we can spin it however we want but the fact is Nadal has started winning slams in 2005 and on any objective measure that is a good starting point. Now I am sure the next whinge from certain quarters will be age related....but everyone is different. When Federer was 28 or whatever he hardly missed slams and he hardly got pwned in second or third rounds..heck at 33 he is pushing the best player in the world currently in supposedly the tough, bad, mean era. Before we make excuses like Nadal was 18 when he won that slam blah blah blah let us wait to see if Nadal can win a single slam...even on clay..past 30. And I see now we are including Murray as a great player again. Nothing more to add here, this is going nowhere.

[Dil Dil India]

I said Roddick against Djokovic. We are talking HTH here, now slam wins are what count? Jeez, how often do we shift goalposts? Of course Nadal's record against Fed is incredible, never have denied it, never will. I dont argue points just to prop up my fav player like Raghav does even if everything points to the contrary.

[zep1706]

Right cherry pick parts of my posts and also leave aside Stan for 'obvious' reasons and everything is fine. Come on zep' date=' I expect that from blokes like Raghav who run away whenever they are confronted with facts, not you![/quote'] Cherry picking? It was a long post so I had to reply separately. Did you see the Aus open final this year? If you did, you would understand the "obvious" reason. Anyways even if we include that it is a fact that he has lost 5 out of 6 finals against other great players. He has also beat them in equal numbers (all outside clay). You conveniently ignored that, a classic example of cherry picking. Nadal was insanely good on clay as a teenager and started to move up on other courts from 2007-08. It is funny that for Federer fans the peak is 2004-07 and nothing outside that counts but for Nadal everything from 2005- till now does. All tennis players reach their peak at 21-22. This is true for everyone, Sampras, Federer, Nadal.

[Yoda-esque]

I said Roddick against Djokovic. We are talking HTH here' date=' now slam wins are what count? Jeez, how often do we shift goalposts? Of course Nadal's record against Fed is incredible, never have denied it, never will. I dont argue points just to prop up my fav player like Raghav does even if everything points to the contrary.[/quote'] No point arguing,will only go around in circles

[zep1706]

I said Roddick against Djokovic. We are talking HTH here' date=' now slam wins are what count? Jeez, how often do we shift goalposts? Of course Nadal's record against Fed is incredible, never have denied it, never will. I dont argue points just to prop up my fav player like Raghav does even if everything points to the contrary.[/quote'] Slam wins count more in tennis. and 6-5 ( for Davy) and 5-4 (for Roddick against Novak) are not any significant difference. Also most of Roddick's win came in the 2009-10 period when Novak was losing to just about anybody. In that period he served more double faults than aces. :haha: Roddick is not even at the same level as Murray as a player, let alone Djokovic. There is only one thing that Roddick does better than Murray, which is second serve. It is not always about numbers. Hewitt was #1 for 80 weeks in the transition period when there was no great players. As soon as Federer arrived he went missing. Had he played in this era, he would have had the same fate as David Ferrer.

[Dil Dil India]

Cherry picking? It was a long post so I had to reply separately. Did you see the Aus open final this year? If you did, you would understand the "obvious" reason. Anyways even if we include that it is a fact that he has lost 5 out of 6 finals against other great players. He has also beat them in equal numbers (all outside clay). You conveniently ignored that, a classic example of cherry picking. Again, different players age differently, different players peak differently. No one said nothing after 2007 counts, of course it does. Federer's peak is 2004-2007. The argument that Nadal tards make is as if he played in a totally different era which is not true at all because as many as 13 of their grandslams have coincided. I see we are still not over the dubious injury in the Aus Open. Reminds me of something I saw on twitter or fb. One bloke plays an entire year(possibly more) with back problems and had mono in 2008 and still won slams. One bloke gets pwned in 1 set, then suddenly gets an injury..gets better as he wins a set..and he is some heroic tragic war survivor..anyway chuck dont want to go there

[zep1706]

Again, different players age differently, different players peak differently. No one said nothing after 2007 counts, of course it does. Federer's peak is 2004-2007. The argument that Nadal tards make is as if he played in a totally different era which is not true at all because as many as 13 of their grandslams have coincided.

Look I have always said that Federer is one of the greatest players ever and he is good enough to win in any era. I was not arguing that. My whole argument was that Djokovic and Nadal have had to face better competition in their prime, mostly from each other and pure numbers like #1 ranking etc without context does not do justice. Any unbiased person would agree to that.

I see we are still not over the dubious injury in the Aus Open. Reminds me of something I saw on twitter or fb. One bloke plays an entire year(possibly more) with back problems and had mono in 2008 and still won slams. One bloke gets pwned in 1 set, then suddenly gets an injury..gets better as he wins a set..and he is some heroic tragic war survivor..anyway chuck dont want to go there

Did you watch the match? Anyways no need to keep harping on that. My point stands regardless of including that match. Federer also lost to Del Potro once in a final. That can happen to everyone.

[Dil Dil India]

No point arguing' date='will only go around in circles[/quote'] I can see that. I only gave it a go because I feel zep is a reasonable bloke despite having his tinted glasses on when it comes to his favourite player(as we all are no doubt). I have seen some of the most absurd stuff around here...like how Michael Chang or whoever is Nadal minus some percent and now the rubbish that makes it seem like Nadal and Federer played centuries apart and how Nadal generally loses only because of injury and stuffs. Even if not directly said it is clearly insinuated. I am done now. Will have a go again in a years time when hopefully Nadal will have added to his non clay slams.

[zep1706]

I can see that. I only gave it a go because I feel zep is a reasonable bloke despite having his tinted glasses on when it comes to his favourite player(as we all are no doubt). I have seen some of the most absurd stuff around here...like how Michael Chang or whoever is Nadal minus some percent and now the rubbish that makes it seem like Nadal and Federer played centuries apart and how Nadal generally loses only because of injury and stuffs. Even if not directly said it is clearly insinuated. I am done now. Will have a go again in a years time when hopefully Nadal will have added to his non clay slams.

I have still not understood what part of my argument you don't agree to. My argument was that Nadal and Djokovic have faced tougher competition and it is tougher to sustain the #1 rank now. That does not make Federer a lesser player.

[Muloghonto]

I have still not understood what part of my argument you don't agree to. My argument was that Nadal and Djokovic have faced tougher competition and it is tougher to sustain the #1 rank now. That does not make Federer a lesser player.

Nobody denied your point that Nadal + Djokovic faced more competition for #1 position than Federer did. Which is why we've several posters metioning earlier that even by Nadal +Djokovic numbers, they will do well to match Federer's weeks at #1 all by himself. And that is also a fair benchmark. Because while we can say that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are the standout players of the last 6-7 years, Murray definitely just skims that list the way the likes of Safin, Marcelo Rios, etc. did. Murray's numbers are better than most world #4/5s are, but then again, the whole field of players ranked 5-20 have much, much worse numbers than the field of the 90s and early 2000s. So one can easily argue that Murray's numbers are inflated because the number of players who can upset him on their best day in much less than the number of players who could've eliminated any non-Federer/Nadal player nearly a decade ago. But one simply cannot argue that Murray is a better player than the likes of Safin, Rios, Chang etc. type players. Murray is basically, a slightly better Fabio Fognini as far as success rates go: astronomical against weaker players, stonewalled against the top 5. The simple fact of the matter is, Federer's era did not have any competent challengers to Federer on non-clay surfaces because Federer was simply too good to steamroll through everyone. Even on Clay, its the greatest claycourt player ever who's stopped Federer's clay record. Had it not been Nadal, against any other claycourter of his era, Federer would've won atleast 2 Slams more at the French and another 5-10 titles on clay. Spinning numbers on which era is better is simply the stupidest thing to do because sports competence is a relative thing. If you are a great player, is it really harder to populate a world where 5 other players have a 50% chance of beating you and the rest of the field having <5% chance vs a world where 5 other players have a 35% chance of beating you and the rest of the field has a 10% chance of beating you ? That is simply, numerically impossible to establish, because its like saying one side of the coin is more important than the other. Saying the top 1% of players in tennis are better today obviously comes with the corollary that if the conclusion is results driven, then the bottom 99% yesterday were better than the bottom 99% today. Besides, Federer's peak is from 22 to 27. This was the period when Federer's physical peak and mental peak coincides to stuninng effects. In tennis, not everyone peaks at 20-22 range. Becker had 4 slams by the age of 21 and then 2 more in the next 10. Nadal's peak is actually from 18 to 25 or so.

[rkt.india]

Lol..Djokovic overall has one US Open but would have 2 if all 3 had peaked together. What kind of logic is that.

then Fed would have had 2. :winky:

[Raghav_12]

Nobody denied your point that Nadal + Djokovic faced more competition for #1 position than Federer did. Which is why we've several posters metioning earlier that even by Nadal +Djokovic numbers, they will do well to match Federer's weeks at #1 all by himself. And that is also a fair benchmark. Because while we can say that Nadal, Djokovic and Federer are the standout players of the last 6-7 years, Murray definitely just skims that list the way the likes of Safin, Marcelo Rios, etc. did. Murray's numbers are better than most world #4/5s are, but then again, the whole field of players ranked 5-20 have much, much worse numbers than the field of the 90s and early 2000s. So one can easily argue that Murray's numbers are inflated because the number of players who can upset him on their best day in much less than the number of players who could've eliminated any non-Federer/Nadal player nearly a decade ago. But one simply cannot argue that Murray is a better player than the likes of Safin, Rios, Chang etc. type players. Murray is basically, a slightly better Fabio Fognini as far as success rates go: astronomical against weaker players, stonewalled against the top 5. The simple fact of the matter is, Federer's era did not have any competent challengers to Federer on non-clay surfaces because Federer was simply too good to steamroll through everyone. Even on Clay, its the greatest claycourt player ever who's stopped Federer's clay record. Had it not been Nadal, against any other claycourter of his era, Federer would've won atleast 2 Slams more at the French and another 5-10 titles on clay. Spinning numbers on which era is better is simply the stupidest thing to do because sports competence is a relative thing. If you are a great player, is it really harder to populate a world where 5 other players have a 50% chance of beating you and the rest of the field having <5% chance vs a world where 5 other players have a 35% chance of beating you and the rest of the field has a 10% chance of beating you ? That is simply, numerically impossible to establish, because its like saying one side of the coin is more important than the other. Saying the top 1% of players in tennis are better today obviously comes with the corollary that if the conclusion is results driven, then the bottom 99% yesterday were better than the bottom 99% today. Besides, Federer's peak is from 22 to 27. This was the period when Federer's physical peak and mental peak coincides to stuninng effects. In tennis, not everyone peaks at 20-22 range. Becker had 4 slams by the age of 21 and then 2 more in the next 10. Nadal's peak is actually from 18 to 25 or so.

You are back to business man. Andy Murray is nobody, just that he defeated arguably GOAT Federer more number of times than Federer defeated him. I am not talking about a small sample size here. Over 21 matches that these players played against each other Murray has defeated him 11 times while Federer won 10 times. In fact, amongst contemporary great players, Federer has winning record only against Djokovic that too by thinnest of margin 18-17. And sorry fanboys, I don't count Davydenko, Roddick, Safin and Hewitt as great players, though I know you have vested interest in proving otherwise. This just shows that while Federer has been very mercurial and clinical in dismantling slightly lesser opponents, in fact more consistent than anybody else but he lacked that mental fortitude to slug it out with the bigger boys on the tour. This Wimbledon, even though Federer is approaching 33, has been another reminiscent of this fact. I don't know what we are debating here. Anybody who suggests that Nadal-Djokovic faced as competition only as tough as Federer faced between 2003-2007, in fact suggesting that Federer himself hasn't been great player after 2007.

[Dil Dil India]

Hahahahaha, I like how Federer vs Djokovic's HTH is brushed away because it is ''the slimmest of margins'' but Murray vs Federer's HTH is hyped when the difference is the same :--D Davdenko has a winning record against the demi god with 5 non clay slams and Roddick has a winning record against Djkovic. Nadal tard pwned with his own logic. When you claim that a guy (a 17 time GS champion to boot) - who at 33 comes back from 2-5 to take it to the 5th set against a much fitter and younger player and world number 1- lacks mental foritude, you show your own stupidity. rkt.cricket, on second thoughts I am actually inclined to think Federer would win a US Open more in that scenario. While a young Djokovic pushed Federer at the peak of his powers in 2007 in the final, grandpa Fed was a match point away from putting away Djokovic in God mode in 2011...in a year where he pwned all and sundry, clay god included.

[Raghav_12]

Hahahahaha, I like how Federer vs Djokovic's HTH is brushed away because it is ''the slimmest of margins'' but Murray vs Federer's HTH is hyped when the difference is the same :--D Davdenko has a winning record against the demi god with 5 non clay slams and Roddick has a winning record against Djkovic. Nadal tard pwned with his own logic. When you claim that a guy (a 17 time GS champion to boot) - who at 33 comes back from 2-5 to take it to the 5th set against a much fitter and younger player and world number 1- lacks mental foritude, you show your own stupidity. rkt.cricket, on second thoughts I am actually inclined to think Federer would win a US Open more in that scenario. While a young Djokovic pushed Federer at the peak of his powers in 2007 in the final, grandpa Fed was a match point away from putting away Djokovic in God mode in 2011...in a year where he pwned all and sundry, clay god included.

and this shows your mental fortitude when you start calling your co-debaters as Stupid. :winky: just like weak-opposition-bully Federer.

[Dil Dil India]

That makes no sense. At all. In effect you just ended up comparing yourself to the weak opposition :hysterical: Nadal tards never cease to amaze.