Muloghonto Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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. 1. Federer vs Murray started near the end of Federer's peak. So obviously, when your peaks don't match, the one in peak will enjoy greater records. 2. Federer vs Murray is very lopsided to Federer's favor in Grand Slams. 3. I see no basis in putting Murray in the Safin, Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick category. Those guys at their best came with a bigger game than Murray. Murray may have more titles but there are more titles available today in total than there ever were so that doesnt mean much. Especially Safin & Roddick, i don't see how Murray wins much against Safin/Roddick at all. Infact, I'd put Murray bang in the hewitt category- they have the same game, murray churning out slightly more power & Hewitt being slightly scramblier. And that is as statistically close it gets for the statsholics- they both have 2 slams, hewitt has #1, Murray never has been #1, etc. 4. Federer's mental fortitude is not in question by any but Nadaloholics. What is at question, is Federer's ability to put out 100% effort after 3 gruelling hours. IE, Federer's issue has always been he runs out of gas near the very end. Even in the last match, Federer ultimately, ran outta gas. You could see it in the last two games, all of a sudden, his shots are 70% power. IMO the only edge the likes of Nadal & Djokovic have over Federer at his prime is they can outlast him, IF they could take him to a 5th set. Maintaining a H2H against the best the field has to offer through a period of 26-33 years of age in tennis is incredible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 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. If we are talking about Federer pre-mono, he'd crush Djokovic. The one guy back then who really missed out on tennis stardom was James Blake- that guy had game! But then again, breaking your neck when you are 21/22 and missing 3 years of practically any tennis would be enough to KO anyone's career. And I've seen Federer absolutely flying around court to destroy that guy. Federer was a much more mobile guy back then and i think Federer-Djokovic would be about as lopsided in its peak as Sampras-Agassi's h2h at their peaks were. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yoda-esque Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Wimbledon 2014 - June 23rd to July 6th If we are talking about Federer pre-mono, he'd crush Djokovic. The one guy back then who really missed out on tennis stardom was James Blake- that guy had game! But then again, breaking your neck when you are 21/22 and missing 3 years of practically any tennis would be enough to KO anyone's career. And I've seen Federer absolutely flying around court to destroy that guy. Federer was a much more mobile guy back then and i think Federer-Djokovic would be about as lopsided in its peak as Sampras-Agassi's h2h at their peaks were. Have to agree with you there TMC 2006 USO 2006 QF Unbelievable movement power and hitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 Have to agree with you there TMC 2006 USO 2006 QF Unbelievable movement power and hitting But Blake broke his neck in 2004 itself, he also had shingles the same year. How did he remain powerful after that when a dubious mild mono that did not force Federer to miss a single match made him powerless for life? :haha: FYI Djokovic did beat pre-mono Federer in Montreal 2007 and had a very tight US open final the same year (his first slam final), where he had chances to win both set 1 and 2. This was pre- gluten free baby Djokovic against JesusFed. He did much better than Hewitt's 6-0 7-6 6-0, one of Federer's main competitors from that era. :haha: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 1. Federer vs Murray started near the end of Federer's peak. So obviously' date= when your peaks don't match, the one in peak will enjoy greater records. 2. Federer vs Murray is very lopsided to Federer's favor in Grand Slams. 3. I see no basis in putting Murray in the Safin, Davydenko, Hewitt, Roddick category. Those guys at their best came with a bigger game than Murray. Murray may have more titles but there are more titles available today in total than there ever were so that doesnt mean much. Especially Safin & Roddick, i don't see how Murray wins much against Safin/Roddick at all. Infact, I'd put Murray bang in the hewitt category- they have the same game, murray churning out slightly more power & Hewitt being slightly scramblier. And that is as statistically close it gets for the statsholics- they both have 2 slams, hewitt has #1, Murray never has been #1, etc. 4. Federer's mental fortitude is not in question by any but Nadaloholics. What is at question, is Federer's ability to put out 100% effort after 3 gruelling hours. IE, Federer's issue has always been he runs out of gas near the very end. Even in the last match, Federer ultimately, ran outta gas. You could see it in the last two games, all of a sudden, his shots are 70% power. IMO the only edge the likes of Nadal & Djokovic have over Federer at his prime is they can outlast him, IF they could take him to a 5th set. Maintaining a H2H against the best the field has to offer through a period of 26-33 years of age in tennis is incredible. Bunch of lies. By End of 2006 - 2 Matches -Andy Murray 1 Federer 1 By End of 2008- 6 Matches - Andy Murray 4 Federer 2 by End of 2009- 10 Matches - Andy Muray 6 Federer 4 By End of 2010- 14 Matches- Andy Muarray 8 Federer 6 By end of 2012 - 19 Matches - Andy Murray 10 Federer 9 By End of June 2014 - 21 Matches - Andy Murray 11 Federer 10. Tell me how a human with minimum level of intelligence as expected from human would conclude that Murray - Federer h2h is in favour of Murray because of Federer's non-peak age. He has maintained lead on Federer right from the time when Federer was 25-26 with almost same margin as he has right now. Swallow it, Federerer aura of invincibility evaporates as soon as he runs into other 3 of top 4. He could boss around only likes of Safin, Roddick and Hewitt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 Bunch of lies. The guy is a shameless liar. I have caught him with his pants down for faking stats/facts at least half a dozen times. There is no point arguing with someone who is inherently dishonest. Let me tell you what his reply would be. Federer's peak ended in 2007 at the age of 26. :haha: After that he had mono (which btw was so serious that he did not have to miss a single match, let alone tournaments) and his peak was over. There is no such demarcation or leeway for his opponents though. They are always playing at their peak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Bunch of lies. By End of 2006 - 2 Matches -Andy Murray 1 Federer 1 By End of 2008- 6 Matches - Andy Murray 4 Federer 2 by End of 2009- 10 Matches - Andy Muray 6 Federer 4 By End of 2010- 14 Matches- Andy Muarray 8 Federer 6 By end of 2012 - 19 Matches - Andy Murray 10 Federer 9 By End of June 2014 - 21 Matches - Andy Murray 11 Federer 10. Tell me how a human with minimum level of intelligence as expected from human would conclude that Murray - Federer h2h is in favour of Murray because of Federer's non-peak age. He has maintained lead on Federer right from the time when Federer was 25-26 with almost same margin as he has right now. Swallow it, Federerer aura of invincibility evaporates as soon as he runs into other 3 of top 4. He could boss around only likes of Safin, Roddick and Hewitt. Because Federer's peak play was from 2002 to 2008. By 2008, he did visibly become a step slower. Murray vs Federer has 2 matches before 2008 and 16 matches after 2008, which is clearly the post-peak Federer period. I don't see what aura evaporation there is for Federer that isn't therefor Nadal or Djokovic. Federer has beaten far more #1s than these two, in an era where becoming #1 was much harder and the race stayed closely 3-4 ways into the US open! Tennis is a short career sport, Federer and Nadal have had long careers ( Federer obscenely so) and peaks dont last longer than 4-5 years for most players. Federer's lasted a bit longer -6-7 years but his first half was better than his second half. Safin, Roddick, Hewitt are all better than Murray! all of them former #1s, all of them GS winners, multiple slam finalists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 The guy is a shameless liar. I have caught him with his pants down for faking stats/facts at least half a dozen times. There is no point arguing with someone who is inherently dishonest. Let me tell you what his reply would be. Federer's peak ended in 2007 at the age of 26. :haha: After that he had mono (which btw was so serious that he did not have to miss a single match, let alone tournaments) and his peak was over. There is no such demarcation or leeway for his opponents though. They are always playing at their peak. ignorant people should just stop twisting facts and making claims they know nothing about. Educate yourself about mono, its effects can go from debilitating to discomforting but one thing is for sure, what it does to your body is the antithesis of high end performance for the body- it makes your cells less efficient across a broad spectrum. Thats like saying every single muscle works 2% less well. Pretty significant. And yes, with some people, serious injuries and illnesses have higher professional threshold than others. Federer does not feck off with an injury timeout everytime his **** is getting nailed to the board like a certain somebody. Sampras was that way too- he mostly went about playing through injuries unless they were joint injuries. PS: Talking about fecking off, i noticed you fecked off after i proved my point re: why GS points in the 90s were worth more. PPS: Whats so wrong in saying Federer's peak ended in 2008 ?He was 27 then and by 27, 99.99% players are in the terminal phase of their tennis careers. The number of men who remained world #1 material after the age of 27 are a very few- Lendl, Agassi are the only two who come to mind. Nadal now is past his peak too and its evident- he is 27 as well. so why the double standards ? Federer's peak was longer than mosts, going from 2002 to 2008 or so. He has had one amazing windown though- his decline has been slow instead of immense and has undergone a six year declining yet one of the best players status. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Because Federer's peak play was from 2002 to 2008. By 2008, he did visibly become a step slower. Murray vs Federer has 2 matches before 2008 and 16 matches after 2008, which is clearly the post-peak Federer period. Sorry you seem to be typing in some kind of stupor. I clearly mentioned that by 2008 Murray and Federer had played 6 times of which Murray had won 4. 66% of their matches. Do you understand this simple language? why you are posting they played just two matches when Federer was in peak which according to you lasted until 2008. http://www.atpworldtour.com/Players/Head-To-Head.aspx?pId=F324&oId=MC10 Do one thing. Go to above mentioned URL and count how many times they had played by 2008. And Post that number here with break up of wins between these 2 players? Hope you would have that much honesty to post that here. I am not going to reply to any of your post until you do this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 ignorant people should just stop twisting facts and making claims they know nothing about. Educate yourself about mono, its effects can go from debilitating to discomforting but one thing is for sure, what it does to your body is the antithesis of high end performance for the body- it makes your cells less efficient across a broad spectrum. Thats like saying every single muscle works 2% less well. Pretty significant. And yes, with some people, serious injuries and illnesses have higher professional threshold than others. Federer does not feck off with an injury timeout everytime his **** is getting nailed to the board like a certain somebody. Sampras was that way too- he mostly went about playing through injuries unless they were joint injuries. PS: Talking about fecking off, i noticed you fecked off after i proved my point re: why GS points in the 90s were worth more. PPS: Whats so wrong in saying Federer's peak ended in 2008 ?He was 27 then and by 27, 99.99% players are in the terminal phase of their tennis careers. The number of men who remained world #1 material after the age of 27 are a very few- Lendl, Agassi are the only two who come to mind. Nadal now is past his peak too and its evident- he is 27 as well. . One more lie. Nadal was born on 6th June 1986. He is 28 now. not 27. Stop posting blatant lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 One more lie. Nadal was born on 6th June 1986. He is 28 now. not 27. Stop posting blatant lies. Ha ha he is a pathological liar, it's a habit, he can't change it. :giggle: Get this -- so now Federer's peak started from 2002? Yet he lost first round at 2 slams and 4th round at other two in 2002. Then in 2003 he did win Wimbledon but lost very early (1R,4R, 4R) at every other slam, some peak that. :hysterical: I don't think I have ever come across anyone posting more retarded comments than this guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Ha ha he is a pathological liar, it's a habit, he can't change it. :giggle: Get this -- so now Federer's peak started from 2002? Yet he lost first round at 2 slams and 4th round at other two in 2002. Then in 2003 he did win Wimbledon but lost very early (1R,4R, 4R) at every other slam, some peak that. :hysterical: I don't think I have ever come across anyone posting more retarded comments than this guy. Retarded comment is one thing. He writes blatant lies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zep1706 Posted July 12, 2014 Author Share Posted July 12, 2014 Retarded comment is one thing. He writes blatant lies. It's a combination of both. First he would lie and then based on that write a retarded long ass reply adding some random percentages and numbers to add some sort of value to it. For example a couple of pages back he even made up some stupid algebraic expressions on the basis that super 9 on grass were very different than on clay in the 1990s. Now the truth is there were no super 9 on grass then :hysterical: :hysterical: And that is just one example, he has been doing that since the beginning. I don't even read his posts anymore unless someone quotes them as I have put him on the ignore list. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Ha ha he is a pathological liar, it's a habit, he can't change it. :giggle: Get this -- so now Federer's peak started from 2002? Yet he lost first round at 2 slams and 4th round at other two in 2002. Then in 2003 he did win Wimbledon but lost very early (1R,4R, 4R) at every other slam, some peak that. :hysterical: I don't think I have ever come across anyone posting more retarded comments than this guy. Peaks in tennis are supposed to correlate identically with results ? What kind of a retarded kid are you ? Ever play any sport seriously ? Best performances dont automatically correlate with best results perfectly, because you can play out of your skin, the other guy can still play better and you lose. Federers game entered its peak around end of 02. It lasted till mid 08. Had you watched tennis back then, you'd know Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 One more lie. Nadal was born on 6th June 1986. He is 28 now. not 27. Stop posting blatant lies. 27 or 28, thats just semantics. All you got is nitpickibg semantics that miss the meat of the posts. But thats all nadalholics got. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 It's a combination of both. First he would lie and then based on that write a retarded long ass reply adding some random percentages and numbers to add some sort of value to it. For example a couple of pages back he even made up some stupid algebraic expressions on the basis that super 9 on grass were very different than on clay in the 1990s. Now the truth is there were no super 9 on grass then :hysterical: :hysterical: And that is just one example, he has been doing that since the beginning. I don't even read his posts anymore unless someone quotes them as I have put him on the ignore list. Grass or carpet, you stuck to semantics, I provided better precision and yiu disappeared, as you usually do. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 27 or 28, thats just semantics. All you got is nitpickibg semantics that miss the meat of the posts. But thats all nadalholics got. Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 No.. in context of discuss it is not just semantics. You very well know that and you twisted these numbers deliberately with malicious intent while having complete knowledge of accurate facts. This is not oversight. It is deliberate attempt to give wrong facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 No.. in context of discuss it is not just semantics. You very well know that and you twisted these numbers deliberately with malicious intent while having complete knowledge of accurate facts. This is not oversight. It is deliberate attempt to give wrong facts. Not really, being off by 1 year is a common rhing in casual discussions. You are imagining ill intent and confusing malice with unimpressed (as much) Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raghav_12 Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 Not really, being off by 1 year is a common rhing in casual discussions. You are imagining ill intent and confusing malice with unimpressed (as much) Sent from my GT-S5830D using Tapatalk 2 You know you have been caught. Now no defense gonna save you. No point is discussing things with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
velu Posted July 12, 2014 Share Posted July 12, 2014 due to popular demand , i m posting this.. federer bossed the likes of roddick who himself was bbossed by the likes of serena :phehehe: AUA7DLG1hns Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now