Tennis Thread 2014

[The Man Himself]

Why can't fans of both Nadal and Federer understand and accept that both belong to the GOAT category and in very very few sports you can have one clearly and distinctly better that others of all time? In football, there is no one GOAT. Same in tennis, as is case in Cricket(Except Bradman ).

Federer and Nadal brings out and demonstrate different aspects of game play and both are masters of it. Winning 17 and 14 slams show how awesome they both are. Silly points and counterpoints just make the fans of both sides look bitter and small time.

 

[Dan_F]

I had to go to a christening today, and missed the whole game. Watching the highlights now on BBC2, and it's just making me more annoyed.
Gutted Federer couldn't do it.

 

[Wayne's World]

This made me very sad seeing this :'( Poor Federer but he's still the GOAT for me

 

[Jagga7]

This made me very sad seeing this :'( Poor Federer but he's still the GOAT for me

This is way to sad. One of the best sportsman of all time. He plays with such elegance and has always been a fautless ambassdor and role model.
I really thought he was going to win after he miraculously won the 4th set, its a good chance this may have been his last chance to win a slam.

 

[jem]

Why can't fans of both Nadal and Federer understand and accept that both belong to the GOAT category and in very very few sports you can have one clearly and distinctly better that others of all time? In football, there is no one GOAT. Same in tennis, as is case in Cricket(Except Bradman ).

Federer and Nadal brings out and demonstrate different aspects of game play and both are masters of it. Winning 17 and 14 slams show how awesome they both are. Silly points and counterpoints just make the fans of both sides look bitter and small time.

Agree with all of this. For me, Federer is the player whose style I've most enjoyed. I've never seen such elegance in a player. But it really is pointless trying to say who the GOAT is. What is astounding is that the 'big 4' (Federer, Nadal, Djokovic and Murray,) have accounted for 40 Grand Slam titles. That's insane, and further proof of how lucky we, as fans of the game, have been.

 

[Nikhil]

The only reason Federer won the number of Slams he did was because he was fortunate to play in the weakest era in tennis. Sampras had retired, Agassi was about to retire, Safin was inconsistent. Hewitt and Roddick were ranked amongst the top seeds in the early to mid 2000s and they were nowhere near the class of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Nighteyes]

Why would it matter. He's already won it and even if he won it again, would still be two behind Federer.

Sklls has already said it. Winning every Grand Slam at least twice is a huge achievement and one that hasn't been done since Laver. You add that to his obvious superiority over Federer both overall and in Grand Slams and he comes out on top. And all this for someone who started out as a clay courter and someone who is obviously disadvantaged that 3 of the 4 grand slams are played on courts more suited to Federer than Nadal.

 

[elmo]

Safin was great on hard courts but what did he ever do on clay or grass? His ability should have warranted more than 2 slams, but it was always mental with him. Nalbandian is one of the best players never to win a slam. More my point was the fact you include Ferrer, Hewitt and Roddick, but not a chance any of them are in Murray's league in terms of pure tennis ability.

Murray is overrated as hell, he's already 27, he should be in his peak or near the end of it and he still struggles to reach the semi-finals of Grand Slams consistently. Nobody would even be discussing him in a list of great players if it weren't for his nationality.

 

[Sixpence]

Murray is overrated as hell, he's already 27, he should be in his peak or near the end of it and he still struggles to reach the semi-finals of Grand Slams consistently. Nobody would even be discussing him in a list of great players if it weren't for his nationality.

Erm, he's reached minimum SF in 10 of his last 14 slams. The other 4 he made the QF. He's consistent as hell.

 

[shaggy]

Murray is overrated as hell, he's already 27, he should be in his peak or near the end of it and he still struggles to reach the semi-finals of Grand Slams consistently. Nobody would even be discussing him in a list of great players if it weren't for his nationality.

Rubbish.

 

[Duafc]

Murray is overrated as hell, he's already 27, he should be in his peak or near the end of it and he still struggles to reach the semi-finals of Grand Slams consistently. Nobody would even be discussing him in a list of great players if it weren't for his nationality.

And, your opinion is meaningless.

 

[Raoul]

Sklls has already said it. Winning every Grand Slam at least twice is a huge achievement and one that hasn't been done since Laver. You add that to his obvious superiority over Federer both overall and in Grand Slams and he comes out on top. And all this for someone who started out as a clay courter and someone who is obviously disadvantaged that 3 of the 4 grand slams are played on courts more suited to Federer than Nadal.

Interestingly, Laver's two grand slams don't seem to get him into the pantheon of GOAT discussions these days - nor will Rafa winning each slam twice. Rafa's big calling card, and rightfully so, will be his 9 French Opens, which will never be matched.

 

[jem]

The only reason Federer won the number of Slams he did was because he was fortunate to play in the weakest era in tennis. Sampras had retired, Agassi was about to retire, Safin was inconsistent. Hewitt and Roddick were ranked amongst the top seeds in the early to mid 2000s and they were nowhere near the class of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.

You obviously didn't watch him play at his peak during the 2004-6 seasons. He was on another level. It's impossible to say that Roddick and Hewitt were nowhere near the level of Murray, when it may well be that Federer's dominance stopped them from winning more (particularly Roddick, who you imagine would have had a couple of Wimbledons under his belt were it not for facing Federer at his peak.) And Safin was as good as Murray (IMHO.)

 

[Raoul]

The only reason Federer won the number of Slams he did was because he was fortunate to play in the weakest era in tennis. Sampras had retired, Agassi was about to retire, Safin was inconsistent. Hewitt and Roddick were ranked amongst the top seeds in the early to mid 2000s and they were nowhere near the class of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.

 

[Nighteyes]

Interestingly, Laver's two grand slams don't seem to get him into the pantheon of GOAT discussions these days - nor will Rafa winning each slam twice. Rafa's big calling card, and rightfully so, will be his 9 French Opens, which will never be matched.

Really? There are plenty of journalists who maintain Laver is the GOAT. iirc Laver has also topped several GOAT polls over the years. He's most certainly in contention but doesn't mentoned as much because the majority haven't seen him and know nothing about the Era he played. There is also the fact that only one of his Grand slams came in the Ope Era and 3 of the 4 grand slams at the time were played on grass which dilutes the scale of his achievement somewhat.

Seeing as only 3 players in the entire history of Tennis (men or women) have won all grand slams at least twice, it'd be a pretty big fecking deal if he won the Aus open again. Same goes for Federer in the unlikely event he wins the French open again.

 

[The Man Himself]

The only reason Federer won the number of Slams he did was because he was fortunate to play in the weakest era in tennis. Sampras had retired, Agassi was about to retire, Safin was inconsistent. Hewitt and Roddick were ranked amongst the top seeds in the early to mid 2000s and they were nowhere near the class of Murray, Nadal and Djokovic.

That is a hypothetical point. Similarly Fed fans can say that he is nearly 5 years elder than Nadal so their peaks weren't during same period so the skewed head-to-head record is pointless. Same can be said about Sampras's domination but it will be again, worthless point. Nadal or Djokovic, both would have found it pretty tough to get past Federer on Grass court and Hard court during his prime.

 

[The Man Himself]

Really? There are plenty of journalists who maintain Laver is the GOAT. iirc Laver has also topped several GOAT polls over the years. He's most certainly in contention but doesn't mentoned as much because the majority haven't seen him and know nothing about the Era he played. There is also the fact that only one of his Grand slams came in the Ope Era and 3 of the 4 grand slams at the time were played on grass which dilutes the scale of his achievement somewhat.

Seeing as only 3 players in the entire history of Tennis (men or women) have won all grand slams at least twice, it'd be a pretty big fecking deal if he won the Aus open again. Same goes for Federer in the unlikely event he wins the French open again.

That 2 slams thing has been talked about a lot and there is some rationale behind it but it can't be a blanket criteria to apply. Federer's distribution is 7-5-4-1. So, not only has he won 3 of the 4 slams twice, he has bettered it and doubled it. Also, he wasn't as average on clay as Sampras was and if not against the best clay court player world probably ever see, would have landed 2 easily.

See Bjorn Borg's record. He didn't participate at all in Australian open bar once. So if we apply 2 slam criteria to him, he won't be among GOAT, but he has to be. Retired at age of 27, winning 5 Wimbledon and 6 French opens. A domination of that kind, on two totally different surfaces, 5 Wimbledon and 6 French is itself worthy of being among GOATs. He has 90%+ win rate in both slams in career. I don't how many others have it in open era, if any. Reached 4 US open finals but couldn't win, still shows he was v. good on hard courts too.

Hence, as I said few posts ago, it is absolutely pointless argument to put one above other between Federer and Nadal. Even if Nadal doesn't win a single slam more, he will still be among GOATs as will Federer.

 

[Nighteyes]

That 2 slams thing has been talked about a lot and there is some rationale behind it but it can't be a blanket criteria to apply. Federer's distribution is 7-5-4-1. So, not only has he won 3 of the 4 slams twice, he has bettered it and doubled it. Also, he wasn't as average on clay as Sampras was and if not against the best clay court player world probably ever see, would have landed 2 easily.

See Bjorn Borg's record. He didn't participate at all in Australian open bar once. So if we apply 2 slam criteria to him, he won't be among GOAT, but he has to be. Retired at age of 27, winning 5 Wimbledon and 6 French opens. A domination of that kind, on two totally different surfaces, 5 Wimbledon and 6 French is itself worthy of being among GOATs. He has 90%+ win rate in both slams in career. I don't how many others have it in open era, if any. Reached 4 US open finals but couldn't win, still shows he was v. good on hard courts too.

Hence, as I said few posts ago, it is absolutely pointless argument to put one above other between Federer and Nadal. Even if Nadal doesn't win a single slam more, he will still be among GOATs as will Federer.

It's a discussion not an argument.

Unlike some others I've not downplayed Federer's achievement on this thread. And I wasn't using it as a blanket statement. I said that fact combined with some others puts Nadal in a very strong position. The fact that even a player as good as Federer hasn't done it speaks volumes as to how difficult it is and not something that should be dismissed like Raoul did.

With Borg you cannot base your opinion on what he might have done. He didn't win 2 of the 4 grand slams so while he would make the top 5 he suffers in comparison to others who have won more. It's the same with Laver, the guy almost won 70% of the grand slams he entered which is quite brilliant. Who knows how many he might have won had he played more but you can't base anything on that.

Interestingly, Federer is the only one out of all the names mentioned who has a losing record with his closest rival. Laver dominated everyone, Sampras dominated Agassi, Bjorg had a good record against Connors and was tied with McEnroe. Federer on the other hand has been dominated by Nadal.

 

[The Man Himself]

It's a discussion not an argument.

Unlike some others I've not downplayed Federer's achievement on this thread. And I wasn't using it as a blanket statement. I said that fact combined with some others puts Nadal in a very strong position. The fact that even a player as good as Federer hasn't done it speaks volumes as to how difficult it is and not something that should be dismissed like Raoul did.

With Borg you cannot base your opinion on what he might have done. He didn't win 2 of the 4 grand slams so while he would make the top 5 he suffers in comparison to others who have won more. It's the same with Laver, the guy almost won 70% of the grand slams he entered which is quite brilliant. Who knows how many he might have won had he played more but you can't base anything on that.

Interestingly, Federer is the only one out of all the names mentioned who has a losing record with his closest rival. Laver dominated everyone, Sampras dominated Agassi, Bjorg had a good record against Connors and was tied with McEnroe. Federer on the other hand has been dominated by Nadal.

On first para, I was not blaming you in particular but I overall prefer discussing their achievements and their strong points than comparison with ultimate target of who is better because both have been unique and have unique achievements and because people invariably slip into petty points on Fed-Nadal rivalry. Here, I am sticking up for Fed, but believe me, I stick up for Nadal in same way when Fed fans try to play down his achievements.

On second para, the difference is, in that in era of Borg, doing a Grand Slam wasn't as hyped thing. The money offered for winning Australian open was mediocre and many players rather played some other tournaments which our current generation haven't heard of because they offered a lot lot more money. Borg's records are incredible. He had 11 slams by age of 25. No other player has. No one else has 5+ at Wimbledon and French, two surfaces as different as chalk and cheese.
Yes same applies to Laver. Just because Federer and Nadal have more titles than Borg, he doesn't automatically become lesser player. In that era, doing a grand slam wasn't thought of a big deal. Players picked an chose based on prize money, travel etc, which tournament to play and which not.

On last para, Fed-Nadal has age difference of 5 years and out of 33 matches of them. 15 have been on clay and only 3 on Grass. Further if you divide surfaces as Grass, Clay, Indoor,Outdoor you will see that out of 33 games only 9 have been on Fed favoured conditions, Grass and Indoor hard court and he leads in them 6-3.
Borg too had age difference with Connors so their peaks didn't overlap. Then he retired early when his rivalry with McEnroe could have flourished.

 

[Nighteyes]

On last para, Fed-Nadal has age difference of 5 years and out of 33 matches of them. 15 have been on clay and only 3 on Grass. Further if you divide surfaces as Grass, Clay, Indoor,Outdoor you will see that out of 33 games only 9 have been on Fed favoured conditions, Grass and Indoor hard court and he leads in them 6-3.
Borg too had age difference with Connors so their peaks didn't overlap. Then he retired early when his rivalry with McEnroe could have flourished.

On a very basic level, as someone mentioned, Nadal leads Federer on hard courts, clay courts, grand slams and as well as grand slam finals. Nadal has beaten Federer in the finals of 3 different grand slams versus only one for Federer. Nadal has beaten Federer in his own backyard where as Federer hasn't even got close to doing so at RG. By most metrics Nadal has dominatd Federer in their h2h's which is why even if Federer does end up with the most grand slams he wouldn't be undisputably the best. This seems to get under the skin of some Federer fans for some reason.

 

[wr8_utd]

Why is it funny? Murray is a far superior player to what Roddick and Hewitt were. Hewitt at his peak is comparable to Murray at his peak but Roddick really was a one shot wonder. It's a joke that that era had Roddick as the number 2 for as long as it did.

 

[wr8_utd]

On last para, Fed-Nadal has age difference of 5 years and out of 33 matches of them. 15 have been on clay and only 3 on Grass. Further if you divide surfaces as Grass, Clay, Indoor,Outdoor you will see that out of 33 games only 9 have been on Fed favoured conditions, Grass and Indoor hard court and he leads in them 6-3.
Borg too had age difference with Connors so their peaks didn't overlap. Then he retired early when his rivalry with McEnroe could have flourished.

I won't comment on the age aspect but Nadal has dominated Federer on every surface there is. Hard court is as much Fed's surface as Grass or Indoor, as shown by the 5 consecutive USO titles he won and Nadal leads him on Clay as well as hard courts and in Slam finals. He has always beaten Federer at RG, he's always beaten Federer at the Aussie Open, he has a 1-2 record vs him at Wimbledon (despite him barely having ever played on Grass prior to his first Wimbledon attempt) and just has a massively superior record over Fed. That is something that can not be discounted when the GOAT discussions come up.

 

[Mockney]

Samuel L Jackson is really bad a selfies.

 

[The Man Himself]

On a very basic level, as someone mentioned, Nadal leads Federer on hard courts, clay courts, grand slams and as well as grand slam finals. Nadal has beaten Federer in the finals of 3 different grand slams versus only one for Federer. Nadal has beaten Federer in his own backyard where as Federer hasn't even got close to doing so at RG. By most metrics Nadal has dominatd Federer in their h2h's which is why even if Federer does end up with the most grand slams he wouldn't be undisputably the best. This seems to get under the skin of some Federer fans for some reason.

Oh, definitely Federer is not 'undisputed' best, that is what I am saying all along. Neither of them is undisputable best.

I won't comment on the age aspect but Nadal has dominated Federer on every surface there is. Hard court is as much Fed's surface as Grass or Indoor, as shown by the 5 consecutive USO titles he won and Nadal leads him on Clay as well as hard courts and in Slam finals. He has always beaten Federer at RG, he's always beaten Federer at the Aussie Open, he has a 1-2 record vs him at Wimbledon (despite him barely having ever played on Grass prior to his first Wimbledon attempt) and just has a massively superior record over Fed. That is something that can not be discounted when the GOAT discussions come up.

There is a difference between indoor and outdoor hard courts. Federer is good on hard courts but he comes short against skillful as well as more athletic players like Djokovic and Nadal. Age aspect remains a factor because 5 year age difference is a big gap in tennis.

If their head to head had more grass court matches, it would have been less skewed. Out of 33, 15 matches have been on clay as opposed to only 3 on grass and all were Wimbledon finals.

 

[Raoul]

Why is it funny? Murray is a far superior player to what Roddick and Hewitt were. Hewitt at his peak is comparable to Murray at his peak but Roddick really was a one shot wonder. It's a joke that that era had Roddick as the number 2 for as long as it did.

Murray may nudge it for some (far superior is obviously nonsense if you've seen the other two in their respective primes - both could've beaten him and vice versa).

To lump Murray into the Federer/Nadal/Djokovic pantheon is out and out laughable though.

 

[Raoul]

On a very basic level, as someone mentioned, Nadal leads Federer on hard courts, clay courts, grand slams and as well as grand slam finals. Nadal has beaten Federer in the finals of 3 different grand slams versus only one for Federer. Nadal has beaten Federer in his own backyard where as Federer hasn't even got close to doing so at RG. By most metrics Nadal has dominatd Federer in their h2h's which is why even if Federer does end up with the most grand slams he wouldn't be undisputably the best. This seems to get under the skin of some Federer fans for some reason.

Its not a really a head to head competition though is it. Its about cumulative results over a career - winning slams, being number 1, the amount of tournaments won, length of time at the top of the game etc.

 

[Sixpence]

Why is it funny? Murray is a far superior player to what Roddick and Hewitt were. Hewitt at his peak is comparable to Murray at his peak but Roddick really was a one shot wonder. It's a joke that that era had Roddick as the number 2 for as long as it did.

Peak Murray would be a great match up for peak Hewitt on grass and hard court.

Murray should not be in any debate with the other 3 legends, although let's not forget that he straight setted peak Djokovic in a Slam Final which is something that only happened once when he was 20 in his very first final at the US 2007. I don't think Djokovic will ever be straight setted in a Slam final ever again. Murray is a quite brilliant player, you simply cannot win a Slam in this era if you aren't.

 

[Bole Top]

Murray has a positive record against Federer and that's pretty important fact when we compare him to Roddick and Hewitt. he even had better record in first 10 matches between them and that was in period when Federer was still at his best. After Federer matured, he won 16 of 18 matches against Hewitt and 21 of 24 matches against Roddick. that wasn't even a rivalry. Roddick is my favorite player of all time, but I'd agree that he was pretty limited, almost like Ivanisevic. I don't even like Murray, actually, Federer is the only one I "hate" more (for obvious reasons), but I think it's unfair that he's still behind Roddick and Hewitt when it comes to total number of titles. he was always a bigger challenge to Federer than those two.

 

[crappycraperson]

Oh, definitely Federer is not 'undisputed' best, that is what I am saying all along. Neither of them is undisputable best.



There is a difference between indoor and outdoor hard courts. Federer is good on hard courts but he comes short against skillful as well as more athletic players like Djokovic and Nadal. Age aspect remains a factor because 5 year age difference is a big gap in tennis.

If their head to head had more grass court matches, it would have been less skewed. Out of 33, 15 matches have been on clay as opposed to only 3 on grass and all were Wimbledon finals.

The age talk does not wash since Nadal was hardly at his peak when he broke through. He had Federer's number even since he beat him at French semi-final at the age of 19.

 

[The Man Himself]

The age talk does not wash since Nadal was hardly at his peak when he broke through. He had Federer's number even since he beat him at French semi-final at the age of 19.

It is not unusual in tennis for 18-19 year old to beat established players. Their head to head was comparable till around 2008, post which Federer has hardly won against Nadal and that also coincided with end of Federer's peak.
For me, Federer didn't adapt well enough or quick enough to Nadal and Djokovic's style and that stops him from being called undisputable best. Djokovic he still handled better but seems to have some kind of mental block against Nadal.

 

[Raoul]

The age talk does not wash since Nadal was hardly at his peak when he broke through. He had Federer's number even since he beat him at French semi-final at the age of 19.

Nadal was definitely better in his late teens/early 20s than he's been over the past couple of years. More energy, athleticism, and power - and generally more entertaining to watch.

 

[crappycraperson]

It is not unusual in tennis for 18-19 year old to beat established players. Their head to head was comparable till around 2008, post which Federer has hardly won against Nadal and that also coincided with end of Federer's peak.
For me, Federer didn't adapt well enough or quick enough to Nadal and Djokovic's style and that stops him from being called undisputable best. Djokovic he still handled better but seems to have some kind of mental block against Nadal.

18 or 19 year olds beat established players at their peak in one off matches not consistently. If Kyrgios was to beat Nadal in every other match, then it won't stand good for Nadal.

Djoko had Nadal's number for quite a while. Beat him in 3 GS finals straight and 6-7 finals in total. He actually denied Nadal an easy run to stack up slams like Federer did when men's tennis was down in dumps.

 

[crappycraperson]

Nadal was definitely better in his late teens/early 20s than he's been over the past couple of years. More energy, athleticism, and power - and generally more entertaining to watch.

Nadal's best season yet was 2010 when he was 24 and won 3 Slams in a single year. Did well in one year window of French'11 to French'12 winning two French titles and making finals of the other 3 slams.

To say he was better between 19-21 is just not true. His peak from above stats comes out to be as 24-26.
It's similar to other tennis players'. Sampras's was between 22-26. Djoko is 27 now and had his super year as a 24 year old.

 

[The Man Himself]

18 or 19 year olds beat established players at their peak in one off matches not consistently. If Kyrgios was to beat Nadal in every other match, then it won't stand good for Nadal.

Djoko had Nadal's number for quite a while. Beat him in 3 GS finals straight and 6-7 finals in total. He actually denied Nadal an easy run to stack up slams like Federer did when men's tennis was down in dumps.

Djoker and Nadal has been almost equal kind of rivalry. Djokovic came on scenes little late but both had their runs against each other. I am hoping it is Djokovic's turn again to go on a run. He deserves to be in double figures in terms of slams wins before he retires and probably has 2 more years to do it.

 

[The Man Himself]

All said and done, we are incredibly lucky to have witnessed Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their pomp and some truly unforgettable experiences like 2012 Australian open final, 2008 Wimbledon final etc.
Murray too played his part little bit with some classic matches and winning 2 slams in between. If he sorts out himself mentally, he can win couple more slams at least before retiring.

Players like Wawrinka and Ferrer could have had more slams to their names had they played in 90's era when some random players won slams here and there. Hasn't been case with these 3 around. Their consistency in each slam has been out of this world and limited others to dream max till semis berth on most occasions.

 

[Raoul]

Nadal's best season yet was 2010 when he was 24 and won 3 Slams in a single year. Did well in one year window of French'11 to French'12 winning two French titles and making finals of the other 3 slams.

To say he was better between 19-21 is just not true. His peak from above stats comes out to be as 24-26.
It's similar to other tennis players'. Sampras's was between 22-26. Djoko is 27 now and had his super year as a 24 year old.

I'm not trying to underplay his success in 2010 - he was fantastic - but the point remains that Rafa exploded onto the scene as a teenager and the physicality of his game suggests he's more of a 17-28/29 type player, whereas Federer is more of a 21/34 player - a later bloomer.

Also, I think we're getting hung up a bit on Nadal vs Federer in terms of head to head despite their having entered tennis at slightly different times. More important than head to head is what each player achieved during their careers - where they number 1, for how long, how many slams, how many tournaments did they win, how dominant were they, etc. When you cumulatively factor in everything, its hard to top Federer.

 

[crappycraperson]

Djoker and Nadal has been almost equal kind of rivalry. Djokovic came on scenes little late but both had their runs against each other. I am hoping it is Djokovic's turn again to go on a run. He deserves to be in double figures in terms of slams wins before he retires and probably has 2 more years to do it.

Djoko's rivalry against Nadal would stand him in good stead rather than stacking up slams against a mediocre lot.

In that sense, no one would care about the slam counts of the trio. It would be about the classic matches between them.

 

[Raoul]

Djoker and Nadal has been almost equal kind of rivalry. Djokovic came on scenes little late but both had their runs against each other. I am hoping it is Djokovic's turn again to go on a run. He deserves to be in double figures in terms of slams wins before he retires and probably has 2 more years to do it.

Djokovic is probably the biggest reason Nadal may not reach Federer's slam numbers (notwithstanding the possibility that Federer may sneak another slam, he's certainly playing well enough to do so).

 

[Snowjoe]

All said and done, we are incredibly lucky to have witnessed Federer, Nadal and Djokovic in their pomp and some truly unforgettable experiences like 2012 Australian open final, 2008 Wimbledon final etc.
Murray too played his part little bit with some classic matches and winning 2 slams in between. If he sorts out himself mentally, he can win couple more slams at least before retiring.

That's always the thing to remember for me, it's hard to pick a top player from this lot but we've been treated to some stunning tennis over the last few years. Federer at Wimbledon and Nadals absolute domination of the French Open is incredible.

Murray I think sits somewhere between those three and the rest of the pack, like you say his head seems to land him in trouble and is a big part of him not winning more.

I feel sorry for some of the other players sitting under those 4. There are some real talented guys who must be wondering what they have done in a previous life to deserve having to play against these 4 at the same time.

 

[Raoul]

Murray is more in the Yvgeny Kafelnikov range - won a couple of slams, slam finalist etc. Kafelnikov however, was number one back in 99.