This is probably the worst post in this thread. Stick to video games lad.
Tennis 2022
- Thread starter saivet
- Start date
- Status
That was my impression as well but didn't want to word it that harshly
Yeah I see it the same way
I think it's accurate though. Murray being subsumed into a "big 4" is a bit ridiculous. He's several tiers behind the other three.It's only with hindsight that it looks silly because of how successful the other 3 have been. At the time in 09ish they were consistently the 4 semi finalists every year in slams, so it's not hard to understand why they were called the 'big 4'. Not to mention how good Murray got right before the injury.Yeah I see it the same way
Murray was in 11 Slam finals compared to Wawrinka in 4. Murray also has two Olympic Gold medals. He’s easily the best of the rest in that era.
Murray fan got triggered
GS finals, masters finals and tour finals of course. nothing counts obviously because Novak isn't 25 anymore and beating him isn't big deal.
well yeah, just a win over probably the best hard court player in history chasing THE Grand Slam. nothing of significance. remind me again how many of such wins your "monsters" have during their whole career?
I'm not actually, I said in my first post that's good enough for me and that's it. you're the one who's constantly downplaying beating Djokovic because he was old at the time even though the level he was showing that year was still great, especially in that FO 2021 semifinal.
at the the same time, you have nothing but kind words for 35 year old Agassi and semi-retired Mark P. nice.
you are right actually, I didn't. because they certainly weren't playing - they were getting their asses publicly spanked in front of crowd.
ouch.
of course you're hurt. otherwise you wouldn't be starting this nonsense about current era being piss poor just after the final ended or how A. Roddick would toy with current crop, not to mention quoting everyone that said both Nadal and Djoko went past Fed in total "goat race", offering of course "aesthetics" as the main argument. obviously, whoever disagrees, he 1) never watched Andy Roddick and 2) has German/Russian roots.
I couldn't care less about both Roddick and Hewitt. they would literally be the last thing I would think after the final, unless of course I was particularly devoted in bashing the current players in order to make my favourite look better
you aren't aware and you don't have to be, but that's how fanboys behave.The triggered Federer ultra fan countertriggers the Murray fan because he knows he has nothing on the Novak and Nadal fans.... how the mighty have fallen.
I think 20 grand slams is quite mighty. Murray on the other hand sits alongside the likes of Wawrinka and not in the fake "top 4" sadly. Hard to deal with I know.
I'm not massively sure why it bothers you? It was a thing given most(probably all) tennis circles acknowledged it, Murray deserved his place in it... that's that, unfortunately he got seriously injured and the other 3 have steamrolled away in the grand scheme of things. Don't be so defensive about stuff.
Isn't that you wading in all butt hurt when nobody is talking to you? He's a best of the rest / among the best of the rest player. It doesn't bother me "massively". Don't feel anything either way about Murray really. He was alright.How come you accidently quoted me.... and replied to the subject you quoted? Are you nobody?
Clearly it's you who is triggered. Breathe. It's Andy Murray. The world isn't ending.
Murray was great. You don't make as many grand slam finals as he did without being great - and the fact that he only ever lost them against the big 3 is also a major prop.
He probably is among the top 15-20 mens players of all time.
He probably is among the top 15-20 mens players of all time.
Why did you quote something and not actually answer it.... are you nobody?
Please learn to read. And not lose your marbles on an internet forum. About tennis players of all things ffs.
I mean, 'punching bag' Roddick has a winning record against Novak and beat him once in a GS and 3 times in the Masters, so I guess beating him isn't a big deal if he's capable of losing four times in a row (5 overall) to such a scrub.
One win. Dear oh dear.....
So you're a Djokovic fan? This would be much easier if you just admitted who you are an acolyte of, and it must be him as you've barely mentioned Nadal, who, lest we forget, still has more grand slams than Novak, the metric that you consider all important.
Top players. Not sure where I said that Novak is not a top player but perhaps you could point this out.
Except when they were playing young Novak it seems.
Not everybody. Just you. And obviously the German Russian thing is a joke.
Again, not hurt. The only person here who seems hurt is you Mr Top, which is clear from your hyperbolic language and the always present suggestion that your guy is not getting the respect he deserves (typical of ND fans TBH, they think he gets short shrift because he rudely interrupted a rivalry between 2 more popular players).
I couldn't care less about both Roddick and Hewitt. they would literally be the last thing I would think after the final, unless of course I was particularly devoted in bashing the current players in order to make my favourite look better
No, fanboys call guys who regularly beat their favourite player 'punching bags'.
Yep the same post that's having me question if you are nobody... since you started this by getting 'butthurt' and 'triggered' quoting, oh guess who, me. ( (1) Tennis 2022 | RedCafe.net )
My bad. I take some of my words back as I thought I was interacting with Altodevil throughout.
He's still never part of any big 4 though. Nobody can get worked up or butthurt over Andy Murray. He was too much of a sideshow to the big boys in the grand scheme of things. Bit of a vanilla player in terms of personality and style of play too. Seemed a decent chap and a good player but harmless and didn't elicit feelings positive or negative tbh.
Feisty discussion. I'll add that Murray would probably have better career than Agassi/McEnroe, Becker, Edberg if he wasn't so unlucky to compete against these 3 giants. Murray was in 11 grand slam finals and won 3! In all finals that he lost, he faced either Djokovic or Federer at their prime or very close to. Murray is better player than Wawrinka considerably. 3 vs 3 slams is very misleading as it doesn't show that Murray was grand slam finalist many times more, and that Murray actually reached number 1 in the World. Also won more masters, won ATP finals. Murray is much more than 3 slam grand slam winner. I am not even a fan of the guy.
Murray was definitely in the big 4 for a few years.
The big 4 doesn't exist without Murray - everyone behind them was too inconsistent. Like there was no established big 5 or big 6 - those positions were too volatile. But for about 6 years, the 4 best players in the world were more often than not Federer, Djokovic, Nadal and Murray
You see, that is pushing it. He did beat Djokovic in two finals, but that is it. He really needed at least 3-4 more slams where he beat Federer and/or Nadal. 3 slams compared to 10-15 all the rest had at the time is just not enough.
He did beat Federer in the AO SFs one year and beat Nadal at the AO and USO before. Problem is after he beat Federer, he ran into Djokovic in the final and after beating Nadal he ran into Federer in the final.
Yeah, that's tough, but other 3 had to beat other 2 and/or Murray on their path to slams. You have to do it. I think Murray did beat both Nadal and Djokovic on his path to winning 2012 USO. Again, I think Murray is one of the greatest ever, but not part of big3.
Last edited:
Nadal didn't play the 2012 USO but it is telling that Djokovic has only won a slam beating Federer and Nadal once I believe and Nadal has only done beaten Djokovic and Federer once or twice and Federer has never beaten Nadal and Djokovic in the same slam. Happy to be corrected on that but the big 3 very rarely did it, it's no surprise or slight that Murray hasn't either.
I still see the big 4 as being more about who's likely to be in the semi finals and even though Murray wasn't the big 3, beating him was incredibly tough for the field.
Andy Murray is an amazing tennis player. One of the 20 best ever without a doubt. Even watching him now at his "worst" is a treat for most tennis fans.
Yes there was a 3/4 year window where it was a big 4 but when the other three are literally the top three players ever, i can see how it might irk some to lump murray in with them.
As to the Bole and Andrade argument here is an interesting thought experiment for both of you; let's say these are the quarterfinals of the us open
Hewitt vs Medvedev
Roddick vs Zverev
Safin vs Wawrinka
Davydenko vs Tsitsipas
All at their best of course. Not much in it I reckon and i'd make medvedev favorite out of those 8 followed by safin
Yes there was a 3/4 year window where it was a big 4 but when the other three are literally the top three players ever, i can see how it might irk some to lump murray in with them.
As to the Bole and Andrade argument here is an interesting thought experiment for both of you; let's say these are the quarterfinals of the us open
Hewitt vs Medvedev
Roddick vs Zverev
Safin vs Wawrinka
Davydenko vs Tsitsipas
All at their best of course. Not much in it I reckon and i'd make medvedev favorite out of those 8 followed by safin
It's not really telling of anything except seeding in the grandslams. Lets say they were usually seeded 1,2,3,4 then whoever is on murrays side of the draw will only get one match against the other goats in the final which is kinda how it played out.
Partly but they've all had opportunities where they've beaten one but failed to beat the other one.
Interesting. I like the winner of the Stan v Safin match to win this one I think.
Roddick slaps the other 7.
Roddick did not have a very good backhand if I recall. My personal favourite, each player playing at their best, would be Stan followed by Davydenko. Stanimal was just incredible when he beat Djokovic.
punching bag Karlovic also has winning record against Novak. nothing to do with the original comparison, which was Fed vs punching bags from those years and Djoko/Nadal vs todays punching bags. I get the goalposts shifting though.
zero is obviously better in your world.
if the discussion required it, I'd have been Nadal acolyte as well. as long as Djoko is behind, Nadal can call himself the goat. just like it was the case with Fed before the other two went past him. nothing to do with your main point, which was Djokovic's level in 2021 when Med beat him.
one was top player, the other not so much but was good to watch. both were clearly nearing retirement at the time. yet when the argument requires it, they're top players regrdless of the form and age but when Med beats Novak, he beat old Novak. whoopie doo as you would say.
doesn't count, remember? only peak Djokovic counts as trophy worth bragging about
of course you are. you're trying to sell the poor competition argument but you're using examples of players who were anything but good competition, which obviously makes you wrong, I'm explaining you why and that's it, that's how forums work.
if I said Sharapova was poor competition for Serena, you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. because you're Federer fanboy, not Sharapova fanboy
I'll put it this way, if all of them started their careers now, I'd back Med to end up with the most slams of them all. purely because of his consistency on hard courts. Safin on his day was great, but those days were rare. it was rare for him to even reach the quarters. most of the times he was unfit and losing in opening rounds of grand slams. same goes for Wawrinka who was bit of a late bloomer. both of them could reach incredible peaks in certain matches, but were far from that peak for vast majority of their careers. at least 3 or 4 times in let's say 10 years I can easily imagine either of them schooling the rest of quarterfinalists only to return to losing in opening rounds again.
shame we never got to see where Del Potro would end if it wasn't for those wrist injuries. to beat Fed in Us Open final at 20 only to be basically retired by 25 was cruel. it's actually crazy that he managed to reach another final using only that slice backhand.
Hewitt to beat Medvedev not because he is a better quality tennis player, but because he'd unwind Medvedev mentally with his antics.
Roddick to beat Zverev. It's US Open, he's more consistent, despite a weak backhand, he's got a strong forehand and serve. Zverev's serve goes AWOL, and he tends to loop his forehand back into play.
Roddick at his peak matched Fed(also at the peak of his career) blow for blow at Wimbledon until he couldn't anymore. Something none of these lot could do.
Wawrinka at his best matched explosiveness with accuracy, which is unstoppable when it works, so I go with him.
Davydenko to beat Tsitsipas. Just a really smart player who, again, outwits his opponents tactically.
Tsitsipas is not the smartest tennis player by a long stretch.
Also, why isn't Nalbandian part of this discussion?
Think he has a winning record against Novak and Rafa, including a time where he beat all 3 of Fed, Novak and Nadal back to back to back.
Just another who couldn't win a GS.
Think he has a winning record against Novak and Rafa, including a time where he beat all 3 of Fed, Novak and Nadal back to back to back.
Just another who couldn't win a GS.
This is poor, even by your standards. 3 games, none in the slams, and a 2-1 record v 9 games and Roddick winning 4 in a row (plus a slam win) and 5 overall against a Novak who was already a Grand Slam champion?
I obliterated your weak 'punching bag' argument with one stat and you spent ages trying to find a lesser player with a winning record v ND in order to respond and this is the best you can come up with?! 3 games? Weak sauce. Do better
No, it's just that something which occurs once is not proof of anything.
So you're a Djokovic fanboy. Not a surprise. By the way, many people had Rafa and Novak as their GOATS before they caught up in Slams. Because slams are not the only measure.
No, Med beat old Novak and Fed beat old Agassis and Phil. But collectively, if you add all the names that have been mentioned, those 2, Hewitt, Roddick, Safin etc, it's more competition than now. You're trying to make a big deal about Zverev and Med, they've got one slam between them and have made the odd final. Great. Who else is there?
doesn't count, remember? only peak Djokovic counts as trophy worth bragging about
As I said before, Novak was already a GS champion, though he was young. So the fact that Roddick beat him repeatedly does in fact matter when you are trying to frame Roddick as useless
No, you're revealing that you're an emotional ND worshipper who is mad that his guy's unpopular. Its OK BT, he's still a transcendent player even if he is a nutter.
if I said Sharapova was poor competition for Serena, you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. because you're Federer fanboy, not Sharapova fanboy
I probably would raise an eyebrow if you described Sharapova as a 'punching bag", because she's one of the best players of her era. The fact that Serena beat her a lot doesn't change that. That just speaks more to the greatness of Serena. Styles make fights, but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.
don't worry about my precious time. it's a well known joke where I live since Ivo himself posted that fact couple of times as his own little achievement. no one except you would take it seriously.
it's a proof of ability to actually beat one of the goats in GS final. one had it, others didn't and have one big zero to brag about. in other words - siuuuuu.
except they weren't more competitive at all. you can put 20 sound names there and it still wouldn't matter since neither of them could win a single set in vast majority of finals.
Thiem, Zverev, Med being "a big deal" are your words, as my opinion on them is just the same as it was in my first post here. they're doing well enough and that's it.
nah, it's pretty obvious that you're the one who's taking current situation incredibly hard to deal with. only a true Fed fanboy would start shitting on current players just a minute after Djokovic won the Wimbledon again and start telling others Fed is better to watch than these "robots". make no mistake, it's obvious what the trigger was
Sharapova for all I care could very well be the best ever and that still wouldn't change the fact she wasn't competitive to Serena at all, just like Roddick wasn't to Fed. and no, neither of them were getting destroyed for 6-7 straight years because of their style
but I wouldn't expect you to understand that.I actually wrote about him couple of pages ago. I watched him since his very early days, first time vs Moya in Umag, and to me he was more talented than Roddick and Lleyton. he beat Fed 5 times in row at one point and as I've said before, the level of play he produced vs Fed in that tour finals is something that Roddick and Hewitt never reached. he should take Davydenko's place in that DE post. both have only couple of GS semifinal in their carees, but at least Nalbandian managed to reach Wimbledon final once.
No idea what this means. I still obliterated your weak argument.
Well we've already established that one of those players actually has a winning record against one of the GOATS so again your point is weak and paper thin.
no you can't
Anyone else?
nah, it's pretty obvious that you're the one who's taking current situation incredibly hard to deal with. only a true Fed fanboy would start shitting on current players just a minute after Djokovic won the Wimbledon again and start telling others Fed is better to watch than these "robots". make no mistake, it's obvious what the trigger was
That's all true though. He is better to watch. Only a Djokovic fanboy would think otherwise. And you talk about shitting on players?! I said the current crop should be doing better against the older greats. Show me where I called any of them anything as disrespectful as a 'punching bag'?
Sharapova for all I care could very well be the best ever and that still wouldn't change the fact she wasn't competitive to Serena at all, just like Roddick wasn't to Fed. and no, neither of them were getting destroyed for 6-7 straight years because of their style
Roddick was pretty competitive to Novak though, wasn't he? By the way, you've just shown that you don't actually understand what 'styles make fights' actually means. It's not about 'styles of play' but rather strengths and weaknesses and how they match up. This is why Roddick has a winning record against Novak but a very poor record against Roger. But what am I thinking, expecting sense from a Novak Stan?
Look, we're going round in circles Mr Top. You love Novak and I prefer Fed. Let's leave it at that. We're never going to agree.
- Status