Tennis Thread 2014

If only Del Potro didn't have wrist problems. He'd be up there.

He's been in some incredible matches with the big four, so has Wawrinka.

Also I wouldn't say Djokovic has two more years to get to double figures of slams. Considering how bad this so called new generation of players are I can see Murray and Djokovic especially winning slams in their thirties. Nadal too if he can stay fit.

I just don't rate Dimitrov, Raionic or Nishikori.
 
The Man Himself said:
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.
Click to expand...
Anyone who disagrees with this need only watch this video:
 
You could argue Hewitt was on the downhill by then. Nadal beat Federer in 2008 on grass in his prime. Del Potro beat him in the US open after he won it five times in a row. Was that not in his prime too?

And let's look at the competition Federer had in his prime. Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzales and Baghdatis. Even Agassi pushed him four sets and he was 34 when he reached that final. You could argue that the likes of Djokovic and Murray were developing in his prime. And Nadal was adjusting to other surfaces.

Federer would be the greatest ever if he went to Nadals court, which is the French open and beat him. Just like when Nadal beat Federer in 2008 at Wimbledon.
 
Bojan11 said:
You could argue Hewitt was on the downhill by then. Nadal beat Federer in 2008 on grass in his prime. Del Potro beat him in the US open after he won it five times in a row. Was that not in his prime too?

And let's look at the competition Federer had in his prime. Hewitt, Roddick, Gonzales and Baghdatis. Even Agassi pushed him four sets and he was 34 when he reached that final. You could argue that the likes of Djokovic and Murray were developing in his prime. And Nadal was adjusting to other surfaces.

Federer would be the greatest ever if he went to Nadals court, which is the French open and beat him. Just like when Nadal beat Federer in 2008 at Wimbledon.
Click to expand...
I'd argue that Federer's prime was 2004-7 - it's actually one of the paradoxes of his career: for a player who has played at a high level for so long, his prime was relatively short. During that period, nobody could touch him on any surface outside of clay. Del Potro was, and still is, capable of beating anybody when healthy (just ask Nadal, who he bitch-slapped in that US Open semi, 6-2, 6-2,6-2.) You keep mentioning Roddick and Hewitt as examples of sub-par players Federer faced, yet were it not for his dominance over them, both would likely have more slams than Murray currently holds (particularly Roddick - nobody outside of Federer would have beaten him in the 2004 Wimbledon final, and he came into the 2007 Australian Open on very good form before being humiliated by Federer.)

My take on it is this: I think it's futile trying to argue GOAT, due to the hypotheticals involved. However, I've never seen a player play at a level like Federer did during his prime. I started watching in the mid-80s, so I can't comment on players before that (yet another reason why the GOAT argument is pointless; very few of us have been lucky enough to see all the greats playing.)
 
It is simply too convenient to suggest Roger's fell out of prime as soon as he started losing to Nadal. Assumes that even if Nadal and Djoko were around in 2004, he would have still dominated the field as he did. It would be like saying when Djoko beat Nadal in 3 straight slam finals, the latter was not at his peak, which is obviously also horse shit.

Everyone has their own reasons to watch a sport and for me when it comes to tennis it is about rivalries. I just don't understand those who preferred Roger thumping opponent after opponent in his 2-3 year spell. The tennis scene since Nadal broke through has been amazing. At least when Nadal and Djoko went on their runs they were pushed hard by others.
 
crappycraperson said:
It is simply too convenient to suggest Roger's fell out of prime as soon as he started losing to Nadal. Assumes that even if Nadal and Djoko were around in 2004, he would have still dominated the field as he did. It would be like saying when Djoko beat Nadal in 3 straight slam finals, the latter was not at his peak, which is obviously also horse shit.

Everyone has their own reasons to watch a sport and for me when it comes to tennis it is about rivalries. I just don't understand those who preferred Roger thumping opponent after opponent in his 2-3 year spell. The tennis scene since Nadal broke through has been amazing. At least when Nadal and Djoko went on their runs they were pushed hard by others.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about preferring it? I've actually enjoyed watching Federer more in recent years, a time when he has arguably been on the downside of his career. But that has nothing to do with the fact that, in my opinion, he reached a higher level of tennis (during 2004-7) than any player I've ever seen.

I'm not sure what your first sentence even means. Obviously his prime was when he was at his most dominant. He won 11 Grand Slams during that 4-season run. For some reason, that shine started to come off in 2008, and it wasn't just about Nadal, who he'd actually already lost to a number of times. He lost to Djokovic at the 2008 Australian Open, and did badly in the Olympics. It was only at the US Open that he started looking like his old self again. The following year was good, but was bookended by the kinds of losses (to Nadal in Australia, and Del Potro at the US Open,) that just didn't happen during that earlier 4-season run. From 2010 on, he's been very vulnerable, although it is remarkable how he has managed to play at a high level into his 30s.
 
One more point regarding Nadal: I think he had passed his peak by the time Novak beat him 3 times in a row. After the 2010 season, he's been mainly a clay court specialist; sure he's reached the finals of other Grand Slams (and even surprisingly won the US Open last year,) but he's tailed off badly at Wimbledon, and not won at Australia since 2009.
 
jem said:
One more point regarding Nadal: I think he had passed his peak by the time Novak beat him 3 times in a row. After the 2010 season, he's been mainly a clay court specialist; sure he's reached the finals of other Grand Slams (and even surprisingly won the US Open last year,) but he's tailed off badly at Wimbledon, and not won at Australia since 2009.
Click to expand...

That would be great except Nadal was great on hard courts last year including winning the US Open and continued that form into the start of this year where he really would've won the Australian Open had it not been for the injury in the final.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
That would be great except Nadal was great on hard courts last year including winning the US Open and continued that form into the start of this year where he really would've won the Australian Open had it not been for the injury in the final.
Click to expand...
I'm talking about Slam results, no if or buts. If we want to play the injury card, then Federer would've have won the Australian in 2008 were it not for the effects of mono. And if his back hadn't acted up, he would've done better last year. It's a pointless argument. What is clear to is that Nadal hasn't come close to reaching his form in 2010, a time when he never would have lost to Steve Darcis in the first round of any tournament, let alone Wimbledon.
 
Bojan11 said:
If only Del Potro didn't have wrist problems. He'd be up there.

He's been in some incredible matches with the big four, so has Wawrinka.

Also I wouldn't say Djokovic has two more years to get to double figures of slams. Considering how bad this so called new generation of players are I can see Murray and Djokovic especially winning slams in their thirties. Nadal too if he can stay fit.

I just don't rate Dimitrov, Raionic or Nishikori.
Click to expand...

A peak fitness Del Potro is up there with anyone, his top game is almost unbeatable and he is the one player out there who is not scared of the big 4 because he knows he can beat them, the rest usually crumble mentally when up against them. I really hope he can get back to his 2009 form but he's been injured that often I can't see it. Will never forget him blasting a prime Nadal and then Federer off the court in consecutive matches when he was just 20 years old.
 
Another loss for Murray, ninth in the rankings now. I watched him against Isner (he won in three) and he was way below the standard he was producing last year. Really shit year for him, might not even make the end of year masters...
 
It's incredible to think he hasn't beaten a top 10 ranked opponent in more than a year. I thought he actually looked quite good against Isner, but throwing away a 3-0 lead against Tsonga in the third set last week and then throwing away the double break in the second against Federer last night suggests his confidence is completely shot. With Tsonga only just behind him in the rankings and seemingly getting back to his best, it wouldn't be a huge shock to see him finish the year ranked 10th.
 
I was shocked after Wimbledon seeing him as number 9.

Sadly since Lendl has left, Andy has started going to his passive mode again . Thinking his opponents will make mistakes and he'd win. I don't think Federer and Djokovic in great form too. Federer got to the final last week but was blown away by Tsonga. Obviously Nadal is injured.
 
Murray is playing way too passive at the moment. He's content with just pushing the ball back into play, needs to step up the aggression.
 
2 years waiting to lift a major trophy, that's perseverance

well done Roger... looking happy!

ps. kudos to Ferrer as well, great tournament.
 
Last edited:
Shocker of a second set from Fed, but he bounced back brilliantly in the third. Been a pretty good couple of weeks for him and with Djokovic out of sorts and Nadal injured, he's got to be feeling confident going into the US Open. Don't see him winning it, but you never know...
 
I don't see him winning it unless his matches to the final are pretty short.

But after reaching the final last week and winning this week, he obviously will be favourite. But Djokovic will be hard to take three sets from.

Sadly rumours that Nadal will be pulling out and no Del Potro again. Damn those wrist injuries.

I'm still lost for words on how Murray is number 9 though.

But this is also a great chance for Drimitrov or one of the other so called younger players to get far.
 
Jagga7 said:
Murray is playing way too passive at the moment. He's content with just pushing the ball back into play, needs to step up the aggression.
Click to expand...

Wonder if achieving Wimbledon after so many years of trying might have dimmed the appetite a little. Once you've achieved your life's ambition it must be difficult to motivate yourself to do it again.
 
USA wants a Federer win. What a draw for him! Isner, Roanic, Murray, Tsonga and Wawrinka all on Djokos side, Feds got like one potentially winner on his side in Dimitrov, Berdych or Ferrer in semis.....amazing.
 
It's amazing just how easy this Federer draw is. Yet again Djoko will have to do it the hard way while Federer strolls through his draw.
 
Zen said:
USA wants a Federer win. What a draw for him! Isner, Roanic, Murray, Tsonga and Wawrinka all on Djokos side, Feds got like one potentially winner on his side in Dimitrov, Berdych or Ferrer in semis.....amazing.
Click to expand...

That is hardly Federers fault is it?

If Nadal was fit then Federer would be on Djokovics side and would you be saying USA wants a Nadal win?
 
Zen said:
USA wants a Federer win. What a draw for him! Isner, Roanic, Murray, Tsonga and Wawrinka all on Djokos side, Feds got like one potentially winner on his side in Dimitrov, Berdych or Ferrer in semis.....amazing.
Click to expand...
Isn't Murray a bit shit these days?

If you consider that and how exhausting Ferrer can be, it's not all that different.

Berdych and Tsonga are both capable of destroying opponents on their day.
 
Bojan11 said:
No, but saying USA wants Federer win is daft.
Click to expand...

But they do, they also want a Nadal-Federer matchup which they'll now probably never get. If they don't want both of these, they are daft.

Feds the form guy, which doesn't count for a lot, plus is a nice match up for Novak, but I still don't buy it for some reason, however much I want to see him win 18. I think Berdych is the only thing stopping him getting to the finals, Grigor or Ferrer would be quite the surprise to me, unless Fed is way unprepared.

I'm gonna go with Novak anyway, safe prediction, pretty sure he'll make mincemeat of his tougher side as Wawrinka will go out before they meet. Fed waiting in the final.
 
yeah, I doubt Ferrer would trouble him, especially on hard court. he just doesn't have game for him. Berdych will probably be his most challenging opponent before final. after all, he was the one who beat Fed in 2012.
 
Nice to see some Aussies get through. Don't expect Hewitt to trouble Berdych too much, maybe can get a tiebreak but I expect Berdych in 3 sets.
 
isnt Dimitrov a top talent?

getting his ass kicked

edit. he end up turning it around pretty quickly...

Nishikori vs Raonic good fun!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.