Wimbledon 2012

So how do we rate this Wimbledon overall?

I thought the men's championship this year was really good. The best players got really stretched early on and the semis and finals were all entertaining. On the other hand I thought the women's was one of the most boring in a long time. Roof was a good addition for me. In fact I liked the kind of hard hitting tennis we saw when it was on so that was a positive for me for sure.
 
Tim Henmans chat on the bbc sport website was terrible, talk about kicking a lad when he is down. All he could say was, Federer is my king and Murray will probably never get over this DEVISTATING LOSS!!!!!

Not even a word of encouragement, how glad he was that Murray lost was pretty evident. Fair play though, he probably thought there wouldnt be another decent brit tennis player for ages so he could lap it up for years and years.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Actually I got the peak age of tennis players from this article that I read a few months ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/te...slam-this-year.-Or-is-he-already-too-old.html

For further reading

http://www.ucsur.pitt.edu/files/schulz/JofGeronSchulzCarnow1988.pdf

It is commonly known that tennis players peak young and unlike you I would not assert my biased opinion without some tangible evidence to back it up.

It was also interesting to see Nadal and Djokovic drop off in this tournament because they are both at the end of their peak years as we speak. Congratulations to old man Federer for becoming world no 1 again.
Click to expand...

Tell that to Rafter, Soderling, Fish, Ferrer, Tsonga, Tipsarevic...
 
crappycraperson said:
All this balanced courts talk is shit. Federer himself won all these titles in the same courts as Nadal/Djoko. Have no idea why his fans prefer to indulge in fantasy where he would supposedly win even more titles on different surfaces. No way to tell he would.

This is seriously getting very embarrassing now. A page back you had someone proclaiming that he would have won even more Wimbledon titles in 90s even when Sampras would have been his competition. Now you have people laughably claiming he was past his peak after 25 itself. Now people indulging in fantasy where he would whoop Djoko and Nadal with conditions of his choosing. And I thought Barca wanking was bad. :lol:
Click to expand...

Players peak at different times. in 2008 Federer was not at his peak.

during the 04-07 span Federer averaged 4-9 losses per year. He had single digit losses during that time. In 2008 he lost 15 times.

Yes he won USO but he didn't made it past the group stages in the YET(something that didn't happen in the next 9 out of 10 outings there), lost to Djokovic in straights, while being 5-1 against him at that time and beating him in straights in the USO and AO year earlier.

Then he lost in straights to Fish at IW, lost to Roddick(doesn't happen very often), lost to Stepanek on clay, Simon, Karlovic, Blake(twice), and it was pretty clear something was wrong. In 2009 he had back issues during the AO.

Yes he was 26 at the time, but that doesn't say anything. Agassi was 26-28 when he went completely AWOL. by 07 Federer was something like 6-8 against Nadal and most of the encounters were on clay.

So yes, Federer was not at his peak after 2007, so was not Nadal in before 06, they both peaked at a bit different times. But I don't buy that weak competition stuff. If Federer wasn't around then Safin, Hewitt and Roddick all would have 3+ slams and will be like Djokovic is now. And if Federer peaked a bit later and beat Djokovic and Nadal, they would be weak competition as well.

For one Federer style is awful match for Djokovic. When 30 and 31 years old Federer beats peak Djokovic at RG and Wimbey and has match points at the USO twice against Djokovic, what does that tell...
 
Enigma_87 said:
Tell that to Rafter, Soderling, Fish, Ferrer, Tsonga, Tipsarevic...
Click to expand...

There are always exceptions to the rule, beside has any of those players apart from Rafter even won a slam?

The three players that we are talking about in the debate are so far fitting the factual trend.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
There are always exceptions to the rule, beside has any of those players apart from Rafter even won a slam?

The three players that we are talking about in the debate are so far fitting the factual trend.
Click to expand...

OK then. Stich, Krajicek, Ashe, Nastase, Lendl, Muster, Orantes. Will those do?
 
Enigma_87 said:
OK then. Stich, Krajicek, Ashe, Nastase, Lendl, Muster, Orantes. Will those do?
Click to expand...

No

If you had read the article in the first place

This is not to say that late bloomers are unknown. Since the start of the open era, we have had 46 male winners of grand slam events, of whom 13 had passed 25 when they landed their first success. But if you look closer at those 13 players, seven of them – including Rod Laver and Arthur Ashe – date back to the mid-1970s or beyond. Which means that they might as well have been playing a different sport. As for the other six, they were all one-hit wonders. You will find names such as Thomas Johansson, who waltzed through the 2002 Australian Open without meeting a single top-10 player. Or Goran Ivanisevic, who won the 2001 Wimbledon on one of those rare days when Good Goran, Bad Goran and Emergency Goran were all talking to one another.

You cannot change the trend no matter how hard you try. The three players that we are talking about are all shaping up to fit the trend.
 
It's not only based on statistics. Players peak at different times. It's not that simple.

The ones that I mentioned played better and were more complete players in the later stages of their careers. Same can be said for Agassi as well, regardless of when he won his first slam.

Chang won his first slam at a tender age, but was in his best years in the middle 90's

The article is subjective compiled list of random data...
 
amolbhatia100 said:
So how do we rate this Wimbledon overall?

I thought the men's championship this year was really good. The best players got really stretched early on and the semis and finals were all entertaining. On the other hand I thought the women's was one of the most boring in a long time. Roof was a good addition for me. In fact I liked the kind of hard hitting tennis we saw when it was on so that was a positive for me for sure.
Click to expand...

Agree with pretty much of that, quite fair assessment.

Highlight for me was obviously Andy Murray's charge, but it's a shame he couldn't do it this time. Nonetheless, Roger Federer - wow, what a man, what a player, what a champion.

No doubt, for me, the greatest of all time.
 
United Fan 101 said:
Agree with pretty much of that, quite fair assessment.

Highlight for me was obviously Andy Murray's charge, but it's a shame he couldn't do it this time. Nonetheless, Roger Federer - wow, what a man, what a player, what a champion.

No doubt, for me, the greatest of all time.
Click to expand...

Agree too, Murray is my man, him being Scottish clearly plays a factor because we don't get many top class atheletes from Scotland so we probably latch onto him the way any small nation does a world class athelete.

Which makes it all a bit annoying because people are now saying he's "won over the public" when they mean the English public... Anyway i dont want to get into it, if you dont like him you dont like him and if you do you do. I genuinely have no personal resentment towards any tennis players. I prefere Djokovic to Nadal and Nadal to Federer in the personality stakes but as players I admire them all.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Players peak at different times. in 2008 Federer was not at his peak.

during the 04-07 span Federer averaged 4-9 losses per year. He had single digit losses during that time. In 2008 he lost 15 times.
Click to expand...

I firmly believe that Roger was struggling with the after effects of mono the whole of 2008 and I think he would have won the Australian and Wimbledon that year if he had been fit. I remember watching him playing in Oz and he was sweating profusely for him and looked out of it at times and yet I believe Djokovic only just beat him in the semis. I think he would have taken Nadal at Wimbledon if he had been 100%.
 
CheadleBeagle said:
I firmly believe that Roger was struggling with the after effects of mono the whole of 2008 and I think he would have won the Australian and Wimbledon that year if he had been fit. I remember watching him playing in Oz and he was sweating profusely for him and looked out of it at times and yet I believe Djokovic only just beat him in the semis. I think he would have taken Nadal at Wimbledon if he had been 100%.
Click to expand...

yeah you can easily forget how debilitating such a thing can be.
 
Djokovic beat him fairly straight forwardly in the semis of AO 08. That's where he was quite clearly most effected by his illness. Not so much at the French and Wimbledon, Nadal was just in his head too much at that point.
 
I think a lot of what affected Federer in 08 was mental. He'd been able to breeze through in previous years, and I think it was almost a bit of a shock for him when Nadal was suddenly able to beat him at Wimbledon. He wasn't much worse than previous years in my opinion.
 
He was much worse. This whole mental stuff is so overrated. Nadal got into federer's head. Djokovic got into nadal's. On Sunday I heard that Murray knows how to get under Federer's skin and rattle him. Bloody hell.
 
Enigma_87 said:
It's not only based on statistics. Players peak at different times. It's not that simple.

The ones that I mentioned played better and were more complete players in the later stages of their careers. Same can be said for Agassi as well, regardless of when he won his first slam.

Chang won his first slam at a tender age, but was in his best years in the middle 90's

The article is subjective compiled list of random data...
Click to expand...

The data really isn't random, it is collated from when players achieved their highest ATP ranking. :lol: The article isn't subjective either it is objective as it is supported by evidence. It simply states that Andy Murray's chances of winning a slam decreased when he turned 25 as historically it becomes much harder to win your first slam if you haven't done so by that age. It doesn't mean that it is impossible just that it is less likely.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have so far fitted the trend of peak age for performance in male tennis players. However, this debate is an aside in another (redundant) debate as Federer is widely regarded as the GOAT, end of.
 
Cheesy said:
I think a lot of what affected Federer in 08 was mental. He'd been able to breeze through in previous years, and I think it was almost a bit of a shock for him when Nadal was suddenly able to beat him at Wimbledon. He wasn't much worse than previous years in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. If you look at Federer's performances in more recent years, especially after AO09, he's improved considerably. It is somewhat mental, mostly a bad matchup though. It was mental, because after that loss it got even worse. That year he really, really struggled, he even lost to Blake at the Olympics, and smashed a racquet in rage.

The mental issues are that in Wim08, Federer didn't change his game much at all. Now compare that to how Federer now plays him on clay, and how he broke him down at World Tennis Finals in recent years, there's a whole different game plan and tactics being employed in points against Nadal.

A point to note that, is that Federer at age 30, is not like the Federer 2004-2007, he will lose and struggle in games he's not supposed to.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
He was 25 in 2007 :lol: the beginning of the end.

Fact of the matter is that when Federer was in his peak tennis years he was beating Nadal in slam finals that were not on clay. My point is simply that if Nadal, Djokovic and Federer were all the same age then they would all have less titles but I think that Federer would have won more than the other two. Hell Nadal in his prime years has only managed one more slam than the old Federer. You are drawing your conclusions from an old Federer against peak aged Nadal and Djokovic, if you want to bring some tangible evidence to support your argument then I would like to hear it.

If you are talking about enjoying watching tennis then you can't look any further than Federer either, he is a majestic player.
Click to expand...

He beat Nadal only in the 2 Wimbledon finals and that was at a point when Nadal had played less than 20 matches on grass in his entire life whereas Federer, who was brought up on clay, has never beaten Nadal at RG.
 
Zen said:
Djokovic beat him fairly straight forwardly in the semis of AO 08. That's where he was quite clearly most effected by his illness. Not so much at the French and Wimbledon, Nadal was just in his head too much at that point.
Click to expand...

I think at the Aussie Open Federer suffered due to a lack of match practice pre tournament but we shouldn't take any credit away from Djoko. Fed might not have been at his best but Djokovic was brilliant.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
The data really isn't random, it is collated from when players achieved their highest ATP ranking. :lol: The article isn't subjective either it is objective as it is supported by evidence. It simply states that Andy Murray's chances of winning a slam decreased when he turned 25 as historically it becomes much harder to win your first slam if you haven't done so by that age. It doesn't mean that it is impossible just that it is less likely.

Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have so far fitted the trend of peak age for performance in male tennis players. However, this debate is an aside in another (redundant) debate as Federer is widely regarded as the GOAT, end of.
Click to expand...

it's subjected due to the criteria that is used. For example if Nadal and Federer are due to retire after this season, then Murray's chances will increase significantly, yet he'll be older. Only taking into consideration highest rank achieved doesn't reflect the actual story. I do think that players peak at different times. For example Nadal peaked earlier than Djokovic, who on other hand peaked earlier than Fed etc...
 
Enigma_87 said:
Players peak at different times. in 2008 Federer was not at his peak.

during the 04-07 span Federer averaged 4-9 losses per year. He had single digit losses during that time. In 2008 he lost 15 times.

Yes he won USO but he didn't made it past the group stages in the YET(something that didn't happen in the next 9 out of 10 outings there), lost to Djokovic in straights, while being 5-1 against him at that time and beating him in straights in the USO and AO year earlier.

Then he lost in straights to Fish at IW, lost to Roddick(doesn't happen very often), lost to Stepanek on clay, Simon, Karlovic, Blake(twice), and it was pretty clear something was wrong. In 2009 he had back issues during the AO.

Yes he was 26 at the time, but that doesn't say anything. Agassi was 26-28 when he went completely AWOL. by 07 Federer was something like 6-8 against Nadal and most of the encounters were on clay.

So yes, Federer was not at his peak after 2007, so was not Nadal in before 06, they both peaked at a bit different times. But I don't buy that weak competition stuff. If Federer wasn't around then Safin, Hewitt and Roddick all would have 3+ slams and will be like Djokovic is now. And if Federer peaked a bit later and beat Djokovic and Nadal, they would be weak competition as well.

For one Federer style is awful match for Djokovic. When 30 and 31 years old Federer beats peak Djokovic at RG and Wimbey and has match points at the USO twice against Djokovic, what does that tell...
Click to expand...

So according to you if not for Federer, Roddick and Hewitt would be like Djoko. A player who was very close to holding all 4 slams at once, beat one of the best players of all time in 3 consecutive finals and had according to many perhaps the single greatest Tennis season in open era....

I bow to your superior Tennis knowledge.
 
Enigma_87 said:
it's subjected due to the criteria that is used. For example if Nadal and Federer are due to retire after this season, then Murray's chances will increase significantly, yet he'll be older. Only taking into consideration highest rank achieved doesn't reflect the actual story. I do think that players peak at different times. For example Nadal peaked earlier than Djokovic, who on other hand peaked earlier than Fed etc...
Click to expand...

The trend really isn't subjective, it is what it is, it is not a matter of opinion of perspective.

What age did Nadal peak 22? Djokovic 23-24 and Federer 24-25? All points to tennis players peaking young as the trend suggests they do! The whole point of my argument was that Federer was past his peak when Nadal and Djokovic took over, both of whom were in their physical peak when they took over. Yet Federer still managed to keep a pace, picking up 5 more slams since and incredibly regaining the world number one spot again this week, which is why I think that Federer is the GOAT.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
The trend really isn't subjective, it is what it is, it is not a matter of opinion of perspective.

What age did Nadal peak 22? Djokovic 23-24 and Federer 24-25? All points to tennis players peaking young as the trend suggests they do! The whole point of my argument was that Federer was past his peak when Nadal and Djokovic took over, both of whom were in their physical peak when they took over. Yet Federer still managed to keep a pace, picking up 5 more slams since and incredibly regaining the world number one spot again this week, which is why I think that Federer is the GOAT.
Click to expand...
No you are linking the fact of emergence of Nadal/Djoko leading to reduction in dominance of Federer as evidence of Federer going past his peak. That is based on a massive assumption that Federer in his peak would have fared better than he did. Even in his peak as you define it, he was pushed to 5 sets by Nadal in Wimbldeon final and had an inferior record against him. So to claim that when eventually lost to Nadal in Wimbldeon final, he was not at his peak is clear non sense.

Also no one knows if Nadal has peaked yet. People forget that out of last 7 slams, he was in the finals of 5, won two. Same goes for Djoko, he can still continue his immense form for next year or two.
 
crappycraperson said:
So according to you if not for Federer, Roddick and Hewitt would be like Djoko. A player who was very close to holding all 4 slams at once, beat one of the best players of all time in 3 consecutive finals and had according to many perhaps the single greatest Tennis season in open era....

I bow to your superior Tennis knowledge.
Click to expand...

Well let's see.

In 2004 Hewitt lost the USO final to Federer. Then he lost the AO final to Safin. then skipped RG and lost the Wimbey SF to Federer again, on the other side of the draw was Roddick as finalist. Then at the 05 USO he lost to Federer again in the SF's and on the other side was Agassi waiting, so Hewitt had every chance to win another USO.

Then again he lost the 04 wimbey QF to Federer(the other finalist was again Roddick).

So yes. If not for Federer Roddick, Hewitt and maybe Safin would have couple of slams more. It's inevitable. There was also a past great in Agassi in his late years(just as Federer is now).

What do we have now outside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic that is more competitive?

Soderling who has mono and may never play again. Delpo who won 1 slam but struggled with injures everywhere else, Berdych who is too inconsistent to even make the SF's of a slam, Murray who won 1 set in slam finals out of 4 attempts. Or Tsonga who is pretty inconsistent as well?
 
crappycraperson said:
No you are linking the fact of emergence of Nadal/Djoko leading to reduction in dominance of Federer as evidence of Federer going past his peak. That is based on a massive assumption that Federer in his peak would have fared better than he did. Even in his peak as you define it, he was pushed to 5 sets by Nadal in Wimbldeon final and had an inferior record against him. So to claim that when eventually lost to Nadal in Wimbldeon final, he was not at his peak is clear non sense.

Also no one knows if Nadal has peaked yet. People forget that out of last 7 slams, he was in the finals of 5, won two. Same goes for Djoko, he can still continue his immense form for next year or two.
Click to expand...

Actually I am linking the fact that tennis players generally peak young and the deterioration in his dominance in the typical years of decline to him peaking young. You are the one who making linear assumptions to support your point of view. Look at it this way, if Federer was still peaking all this time then all credit to him because the other two will not outlast him, Fed has just become world No 1 again when the other two are just tipping past their peak, that piece of anecdotal evidence does not look too good for you either! Nadal and Djokovic may not have peaked but the early indications are that they probably have, I certainly think that Nadal has and I doubt that Djokovic will return to the consistant brilliance that he displayed in recent times.

I will concede that if they had all come through at the same time then it is unclear who would have prevailed but the cold hard fact is that all the records and evidence point to Federer being the GOAT.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
The trend really isn't subjective, it is what it is, it is not a matter of opinion of perspective.

What age did Nadal peak 22? Djokovic 23-24 and Federer 24-25? All points to tennis players peaking young as the trend suggests they do! The whole point of my argument was that Federer was past his peak when Nadal and Djokovic took over, both of whom were in their physical peak when they took over. Yet Federer still managed to keep a pace, picking up 5 more slams since and incredibly regaining the world number one spot again this week, which is why I think that Federer is the GOAT.
Click to expand...

well I agree with most of the above. My point is that some peak early some later. I mean it depends, even Federer is late bloomer compared to Djokovic and Nadal, especially the latter who peaked(or was close to his peak) in his teenage years.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Actually I am linking the fact that tennis players generally peak young and the deterioration in his dominance in the typical years of decline to him peaking young. You are the one who making linear assumptions to support your point of view. Look at it this way, if Federer was still peaking all this time then all credit to him because the other two will not outlast him, Fed has just become world No 1 again when the other two are just tipping past their peak, that piece of anecdotal evidence does not look too good for you either! Nadal and Djokovic may not have peaked but the early indications are that they probably have, I certainly think that Nadal has and I doubt that Djokovic will return to the consistant brilliance that he displayed in recent times.

I will concede that if they had all come through at the same time then it is unclear who would have prevailed but the cold hard fact is that all the records and evidence point to Federer being the GOAT.
Click to expand...
No one is arguing about whether Federer is GOAT or not. Bjorg lost to McEnroe plenty of times, does not affect his status at all. Similarly Fed losing to Nadal in his prime is actually not going to matter. If anything his legacy will be much better for this rivalry. For some reason Fed fans have a chip on their should about Nadal though and try to come up with all kind of excuses. Odd but expected in this age of fanbois.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Well let's see.

In 2004 Hewitt lost the USO final to Federer. Then he lost the AO final to Safin. then skipped RG and lost the Wimbey SF to Federer again, on the other side of the draw was Roddick as finalist. Then at the 05 USO he lost to Federer again in the SF's and on the other side was Agassi waiting, so Hewitt had every chance to win another USO.

Then again he lost the 04 wimbey QF to Federer(the other finalist was again Roddick).

So yes. If not for Federer Roddick, Hewitt and maybe Safin would have couple of slams more. It's inevitable. There was also a past great in Agassi in his late years(just as Federer is now).

What do we have now outside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic that is more competitive?

Soderling who has mono and may never play again. Delpo who won 1 slam but struggled with injures everywhere else, Berdych who is too inconsistent to even make the SF's of a slam, Murray who won 1 set in slam finals out of 4 attempts. Or Tsonga who is pretty inconsistent as well?
Click to expand...
To be honest, I am not going to indulge your delusion. Anyone who thinks Hewitt and Roddick were any where near the level Djoko has displayed now.. should well stop commenting on Tennis. Similar to delusion displayed by Liverpool fans regarding their players. Carry on as you were.
 
Is there even any young male tennis players coming through at the moment who can upset the established stars in years to come?
 
crappycraperson said:
To be honest, I am not going to indulge your delusion. Anyone who thinks Hewitt and Roddick were any where near the level Djoko has displayed now.. should well stop commenting on Tennis. Similar to delusion displayed by Liverpool fans regarding their players. Carry on as you were.
Click to expand...

Hewitt has over 80 weeks at #1. He was #1 in the world for almost 2 years. Won 2 slams and lost 8 times in a row to the eventual champion(half of it against Federer).

Where did I say that any of Hewitt or Roddick will be like Djoko? I said that both of them will have couple of slams more, which I don't think is arguable. If Federer peaked 2-3 years later, Djokovic may not have won even 1 slam to his name.
 
FranklyVulgar said:
Agree too, Murray is my man, him being Scottish clearly plays a factor because we don't get many top class atheletes from Scotland so we probably latch onto him the way any small nation does a world class athelete.

Which makes it all a bit annoying because people are now saying he's "won over the public" when they mean the English public... Anyway i dont want to get into it, if you dont like him you dont like him and if you do you do. I genuinely have no personal resentment towards any tennis players. I prefere Djokovic to Nadal and Nadal to Federer in the personality stakes but as players I admire them all.
Click to expand...

I wonder will the English public remember being won over by the next time they care about tennis..about a year from now.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Hewitt has over 80 weeks at #1. He was #1 in the world for almost 2 years. Won 2 slams and lost 8 times in a row to the eventual champion(half of it against Federer).

Where did I say that any of Hewitt or Roddick will be like Djoko? I said that both of them will have couple of slams more, which I don't think is arguable. If Federer peaked 2-3 years later, Djokovic may not have won even 1 slam to his name.
Click to expand...

No. Apparently everything is set in stone and we are not to take anything into consideration when forming our opinion. Courts getting extremely slow favoring baseline runners? Ignore it despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. How long was Federer's peak? Obviously as long as we can assume it to be so as to include when his form clearly dipped even against players other than his main rivals.

I mean it's silly. People are getting retardedly worked up in this thread over someone else holding an alternate viewpoint.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Is there even any young male tennis players coming through at the moment who can upset the established stars in years to come?
Click to expand...

We never know until they actually do it. If you look at most big tennis players over the past 30 years, they generally emerge at big tournaments by ousting established players. In a few instances (Wilander, Becker, Chang etc) they actually announce themselves by winning a slam.
 
Anyway on to better and more relevant things, I think Federer will play another 2 or 3 years, depending on how they go of course. But from everything I've heard him say post Sunday, he looks to be reinvigorated by this win and I think it's given him a huge shot of self belief that with age was possibly deserting him a little.

Honestly I think the Olympics aren't really that important in tennis so the next thing to really look forward to is the US Open. And if he can keep up the level he showed at Wimbledon I can see him being a huge threat at both the US and Australian Open. I said earlier that any more GS' will be a bonus for me but I reckon he believes he can win a few more yet. Personally, I'm just going to savor watching him for this duration. He's a freak. A once in a lifetime player that combines genius, style and flair so perfectly.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Well let's see.

In 2004 Hewitt lost the USO final to Federer. Then he lost the AO final to Safin. then skipped RG and lost the Wimbey SF to Federer again, on the other side of the draw was Roddick as finalist. Then at the 05 USO he lost to Federer again in the SF's and on the other side was Agassi waiting, so Hewitt had every chance to win another USO.

Then again he lost the 04 wimbey QF to Federer(the other finalist was again Roddick).

So yes. If not for Federer Roddick, Hewitt and maybe Safin would have couple of slams more. It's inevitable. There was also a past great in Agassi in his late years(just as Federer is now).

What do we have now outside Federer, Nadal and Djokovic that is more competitive?

Soderling who has mono and may never play again. Delpo who won 1 slam but struggled with injures everywhere else, Berdych who is too inconsistent to even make the SF's of a slam, Murray who won 1 set in slam finals out of 4 attempts. Or Tsonga who is pretty inconsistent as well?
Click to expand...

If even Federer wasn't around that would most definitely be a strong contender for the weakest period in mens tennis.
 
Enigma_87 said:
Hewitt has over 80 weeks at #1. He was #1 in the world for almost 2 years. Won 2 slams and lost 8 times in a row to the eventual champion(half of it against Federer).

Where did I say that any of Hewitt or Roddick will be like Djoko? I said that both of them will have couple of slams more, which I don't think is arguable. If Federer peaked 2-3 years later, Djokovic may not have won even 1 slam to his name.
Click to expand...

They'd have a couple of slams more because the lack of competition was a joke back then. Federer, Roddick, Hewitt and a rarely functioning Safin. Put Djokovic in that time (in place of Fed) and he'd be sitting on 15 Slams right now.
 
Jimy_Hills_Chin said:
Is there even any young male tennis players coming through at the moment who can upset the established stars in years to come?
Click to expand...

Think Raonic is supposed to be a huge talent but hasn't impressed him any bit whenever I've seen him. Don't know about any others.

I love how Monfils and Juan Potro plays but both of them are forever injured.
 
Raonic will probably win a couple of Slams but he still feels too one dimensional to me. It's all about the serve for him like it is for most North American players. Monfils won't ever win a Slam imo and Del Potro is the one to win Slams if he can get anywhere close to his pre injury best. Dimitrov has potential too.
 
We(Indians) can only wish about Yuki Bhambri, he seemed like a decent talent. Winning some Junior Tournaments, but hasn't really kicked on well. Good to know he's training at Bollettieri Academy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.