Can You Say 2011??

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

at least if djokovic n rafa play at the French open it can only be in the final. not like last year.

 

[Kieran]

at least if djokovic n rafa play at the French open it can only be in the final. not like last year.

I think that would suit Rafa more, but maybe not. It's not like Nole is a greenhorn. Being in a slam final wouldn't feel strange or extraordinary. I saw on the ATP site that Nole can overtake Rafa in the next 8 weeks. Bring it on!

 

[Kieran]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.

Most likely, though only on one surface. On grass, Rafa was still rising, but out of his depth compared to Roger. And going by this, who was as relevant in 2006 as 2011-Rafa, who Nole faced?

Anyway, it's a good argument and it's nice to be on the side of the Djokolites for once! :laydownlaughing

 

[Moxie]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.

Is that true, though? Roger was the man that stopped Novak's streak at RG in 2011. And he still had a Major and a #1 in his future. (Not to say he doesn't still.) Rafa was still pretty green in 2006, though he was #2. He was still only 19/20.

 

[Federberg]

From the sounds of it, people aren't questioning the superiority of 2006 by the cold numbers? But instead are somehow elevating 2011 because of the subjectively greater level of competition? It would be nice to have a discussion about Laver's 1969 in the same light then...

Or perhaps in a few years, if Rafa fails to reach 17 or whatever number Roger ends up with, we can all sit down and discuss the superiority of Masters 1000s in benchmarking a players place in history? After all... it's just opinion I guess...

 

[Ricardo]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.

Is that true, though? Roger was the man that stopped Novak's streak at RG in 2011. And he still had a Major and a #1 in his future. (Not to say he doesn't still.) Rafa was still pretty green in 2006, though he was #2. He was still only 19/20.

it only mean a past his peak Fed still had game to beat peak Novak, and that Novak 2011 field didn't include a peak Fed..... that's exactly what it was. So Fed won a major and got to #1 after yet he was in general on a decline, which is a long slope even if it still contains the up and downs.

so Rafa was that green? no good? he hasn't reached his peak but he was in the middle of the longest clay winning streak ever, so he was playing high level no? in contrast Fed 2011 was not playing nowhere near his best tennis, what did he do in Wimbledon? even in USO he blew match points after playing higher level tennis than Novak for most of the match, and frankly i don't see him doing that when he was at his best. Peak Fed was great at closing out matches, he was serving for it..... match was on his racquet.

what's your point though? you don't even know the prestige and importance of WTF and still act like you know how to assess it. I suggest you study the basics.

 

[Kieran]

People often diss Laver by saying he faced old grey men, weaker fields, etc. It's fair comment, they even say about three slams being on grass.

What's wrong with looking at the tale behind the stats? Nobody is denigrating Federer. I don't see how he could have improved on 2006.

As for, "perhaps in a few years, if Rafa fails to reach 17 or whatever number Roger ends up with, we can all sit down and discuss the superiority of Masters 1000s in benchmarking a players place in history? After all... it's just opinion I guess..." ...well, bring that statement to Borg and Laver. They would have thought, "it's all just opinion to count slams willy-nilly and declare a player GOAT, based on that."

Nobody set much store on the number of slams won. In Borg's day, and McEnroe's, the record holder was still Emerson - nobody's idea of a GOAT...

 

[DarthFed]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.

Is that true, though? Roger was the man that stopped Novak's streak at RG in 2011. And he still had a Major and a #1 in his future. (Not to say he doesn't still.) Rafa was still pretty green in 2006, though he was #2. He was still only 19/20.

And already playing better on clay than anyone we had seen before. The only thing of note Roger lost that year was the RG final and it didn't help having the best clay court player ever to deal with.

Roger in 2011 on the other hand only made the final of his weakest slam and didn't win a big title until Paris that year and still managed to beat Nole at RG and give him all sorts of trouble at USO. Does 2011 Roger beat 2006 Roger at RG and get match points at USO?

 

[britbox]

^I think the point being made was 2006 Rafa was more relevant than 2011 Federer when comparing fields.

Is that true, though? Roger was the man that stopped Novak's streak at RG in 2011. And he still had a Major and a #1 in his future. (Not to say he doesn't still.) Rafa was still pretty green in 2006, though he was #2. He was still only 19/20.

Roger didn't win any majors in 2011. He got to the French Open Final.
Nadal won the French Open in 2006 and got to the Wimbeldon Final.

Roger won 1 Masters 1000 in 2011 (Paris)
Rafa won 2 Masters 1000 in 2006 (Monte Carlo, Rome)

Roger ended the year at #3
Rafa ended the year at #2

So, yeah - I'd say it's valid.

As for your points, Roger had #1 in his future in 2011? Sure he did. 2006 Nadal also had number #1 in his future. Federer did indeed stop Djokovic's streak in 2011 at Roland Garros. Likewise 2006 Nadal beat Federer at Roland Garros.

 

[Ricardo]

From the sounds of it, people aren't questioning the superiority of 2006 by the cold numbers? But instead are somehow elevating 2011 because of the subjectively greater level of competition? It would be nice to have a discussion about Laver's 1969 in the same light then...

Or perhaps in a few years, if Rafa fails to reach 17 or whatever number Roger ends up with, we can all sit down and discuss the superiority of Masters 1000s in benchmarking a players place in history? After all... it's just opinion I guess...

after all, people who talk like that are the minority.... they are either the Novak fans or Kieran/Moxie and we know their motives. I guess Fed is unique in the way that some are always determined to talk him down, directly or indirectly, and certain 'criteria' is only applied to him...... i wonder how come nobody questioned or put asterisk to Agassi's GS completion beating Medvedev at RG yet devalue Fed's GS when he beat Soderling? how come Andre didn't have to beat the like of Kuerten, Muster and Bruguera (the best clay courters of 90s) to get the full credit?

 

[Kieran]

Rafa on clay was a beast in 2006, that's true. I often said it, but Roger's supreme chance to get on top of Rafa was in 2005, at RG, before Nadal became ironclad in his clay self-belief.

Who else was a beast in 2006? Who else could stop Roger, off clay? What Rafa was to Nole in 2011, who was that man to Roger, in 2006? Could take a while, this one.

Moxie is right: Roger was a force still in 2011, and the proof of this is that he began his march back to the top in that season, and he was playing great enough tennis to stop Nole in Paris, and almost in New York. So Nole had Fedal to contend with - Rafa in his pure prime, and a potent Roger. That's enough field for anyone with only one slam to their name to have to face...

 

[Ricardo]

People often diss Laver by saying he faced old grey men, weaker fields, etc. It's fair comment, they even say about three slams being on grass.

What's wrong with looking at the tale behind the stats? Nobody is denigrating Federer. I don't see how he could have improved on 2006.

As for, "perhaps in a few years, if Rafa fails to reach 17 or whatever number Roger ends up with, we can all sit down and discuss the superiority of Masters 1000s in benchmarking a players place in history? After all... it's just opinion I guess..." ...well, bring that statement to Borg and Laver. They would have thought, "it's all just opinion to count slams willy-nilly and declare a player GOAT, based on that."

Nobody set much store on the number of slams won. In Borg's day, and McEnroe's, the record holder was still Emerson - nobody's idea of a GOAT...

who in his right mind dissed Laver? and nobody is denigrating Federer? coming from you i'd say that's another statement you couldn't back up.

sure, number of slam is not even comparable to the GS...... so whoever did the GS is at the summit (Laver), and whoever are closest should be ranked accordingly, in which case Fed was one match away while Novak was two. you can't be fairer than this, you think talking about weak field changes something it doesn't.... you wanna walk us through how Laver's opponents weren't as good?

 

[Federberg]

From the sounds of it, people aren't questioning the superiority of 2006 by the cold numbers? But instead are somehow elevating 2011 because of the subjectively greater level of competition? It would be nice to have a discussion about Laver's 1969 in the same light then...

Or perhaps in a few years, if Rafa fails to reach 17 or whatever number Roger ends up with, we can all sit down and discuss the superiority of Masters 1000s in benchmarking a players place in history? After all... it's just opinion I guess...

after all, people who talk like that are the minority.... they are either the Novak fans or Kieran/Moxie and we know their motives. I guess Fed is unique in the way that some are always determined to talk him down, directly or indirectly, and certain 'criteria' is only applied to him...... i wonder how come nobody questioned or put asterisk to Agassi's GS completion beating Medvedev at RG yet devalue Fed's GS when he beat Soderling? how come Andre didn't have to beat the like of Kuerten, Muster and Bruguera (the best clay courters of 90s) to get the full credit?

I agree. Sadly there's a very specific agenda here. Why let facts get in the way of bias...

 

[Kieran]

who in his right mind dissed Laver? and nobody is denigrating Federer? coming from you i'd say that's another statement you couldn't back up.

sure, number of slam is not even comparable to the GS...... so whoever did the GS is at the summit (Laver), and whoever are closest should be ranked accordingly, in which case Fed was one match away while Novak was two. you can't be fairer than this, you think talking about weak field changes something it doesn't.... you wanna walk us through how Laver's opponents weren't as good?

You see how you don't pay attention, buddy? Where did I say that "Laver's opponents weren't as good?"

This should be as funny as the last time. Go for it...where? And before you spit and spurt, when I say "it's a fair comment" that doesn't mean I agree with it. It means, it's a fair comment. Making a fair and reasonable comment in the field of opinion doesn't mean that what we're saying is true. Apply yourself, but don't overdo it or you might look bad again.

As for not backing things up...:laydownlaughing You were asked three times and you sputtered and fumbled and "spoofed" but didn't back anything up because there was nothing there.

 

[Ricardo]

Rafa on clay was a beast in 2006, that's true. I often said it, but Roger's supreme chance to get on top of Rafa was in 2005, at RG, before Nadal became ironclad in his clay self-belief.

Who else was a beast in 2006? Who else could stop Roger, off clay? What Rafa was to Nole in 2011, who was that man to Roger, in 2006? Could take a while, this one.

Moxie is right: Roger was a force still in 2011, and the proof of this is that he began his march back to the top in that season, and he was playing great enough tennis to stop Nole in Paris, and almost in New York. So Nole had Fedal to contend with - Rafa in his pure prime, and a potent Roger. That's enough field for anyone with only one slam to their name to have to face...

he was playing great enough to beat Novak at RG, that just means Novak's peak tennis may not be as good as some claimed. In fact Murray was also serving for the match against Novak in one of the previous Masters, in which he choked - a bad line call also had some impact. It wasn't like Novak was outplaying everyone, he made that great streak based on as much confidence and good fortune as on his game. You are talking as if Novak was playing at a unbelievable level like we've never seen before, which clearly wasn't the case.

 

[tennisville]

Rafa on clay was a beast in 2006, that's true. I often said it, but Roger's supreme chance to get on top of Rafa was in 2005, at RG, before Nadal became ironclad in his clay self-belief.

Who else was a beast in 2006? Who else could stop Roger, off clay? What Rafa was to Nole in 2011, who was that man to Roger, in 2006? Could take a while, this one.

Moxie is right: Roger was a force still in 2011, and the proof of this is that he began his march back to the top in that season, and he was playing great enough tennis to stop Nole in Paris, and almost in New York. So Nole had Fedal to contend with - Rafa in his pure prime, and a potent Roger. That's enough field for anyone with only one slam to their name to have to face...

To be fair Nadal was a great player all round in 2006, he would go on to win Indian Wells in 2007 and won in Dubai. He also reached the wimbledon final and the semis of the YEC an indoors event.I see his resume is pretty strong all around. 1 important fact not mentioned is that Roger had to play Nadal when he was actually better on clay in best of 5 finals. Its tougher to beat Rafa on a best of 5 than in best of 3. I actually believe having MP in Rome was a higher achievement by Fed as the mentality is different in a best of 5 match. Also Rafa was better on clay in 2006 than he was in 2011.

Also Federer had to beat Djokovic,Murray in 2006 as well. He actually lost to Murray when they played.

Another factor forgotten is that Novak was 6-4 in the indoor season which is his achilles heel. Indoor season is very important and he failed to dominate that losing to nobodies in my opinion. Federer on the other hand was best around the year and second best on clay. Novak was not even in the top 5 indoors that year. So Federer in 2006 was better than Novak in 2011

 

[Ricardo]

who in his right mind dissed Laver? and nobody is denigrating Federer? coming from you i'd say that's another statement you couldn't back up.

sure, number of slam is not even comparable to the GS...... so whoever did the GS is at the summit (Laver), and whoever are closest should be ranked accordingly, in which case Fed was one match away while Novak was two. you can't be fairer than this, you think talking about weak field changes something it doesn't.... you wanna walk us through how Laver's opponents weren't as good?

You see how you don't pay attention, buddy? Where did I say that "Laver's opponents weren't as good?"

This should be as funny as the last time. Go for it...where? And before you spit and spurt, when I say "it's a fair comment" that doesn't mean I agree with it. It means, it's a fair comment. Making a fair and reasonable comment in the field of opinion doesn't mean that what we're saying is true. Apply yourself, but don't overdo it or you might look bad again.

As for not backing things up...:laydownlaughing You were asked three times and you sputtered and fumbled and "spoofed" but didn't back anything up because there was nothing there.

nothing there? i quoted you more than three times to show where you were heading, don't pretend like it never happened or you didn't mean it. what are you an actor? :snigger

obviously you are not as witty as you claimed, or you'd get the point that whatever opinion about the field is irrelevant to this discussion, since success is based on results - and it applies to Laver, Fed, Novak and whoever else. Now you know what 'fair' means?

now you can keep spewing out your 'opinions' and let's see who looks 'bad'. :laydownlaughing

 

[Kieran]

Yeahj, Nole had Murray too that year, playing good tennis. You're convincing me more and more.

It's a pity that some Federer fans are taking this personally. Some are engaging with the topic, but others are engaging with their own pants and claiming there's agendas. This is paranoid stuff. I'm not even a Nole fan, but I own up to it - he broke my heart in 2011 playing incredible tennis. I had hoped that after 2010 that Rafa might get at least one cheap season with the Gonzo's and Baggy's and Fozzy Bear's of this world, but then Djokzilla came ranging over the mountaintops, the baddest beast in history...

 

[britbox]

Rafa on clay was a beast in 2006, that's true. I often said it, but Roger's supreme chance to get on top of Rafa was in 2005, at RG, before Nadal became ironclad in his clay self-belief.

Who else was a beast in 2006? Who else could stop Roger, off clay? What Rafa was to Nole in 2011, who was that man to Roger, in 2006? Could take a while, this one.

Moxie is right: Roger was a force still in 2011, and the proof of this is that he began his march back to the top in that season, and he was playing great enough tennis to stop Nole in Paris, and almost in New York. So Nole had Fedal to contend with - Rafa in his pure prime, and a potent Roger. That's enough field for anyone with only one slam to their name to have to face...

Federer had a better year against Nadal in 07 than 06 but not as good a season overall. Sorry to keep beating the same drum but it's about taking out the field and winning tournaments. Hardly Federer's fault if Nadal doesn't make it through a supposedly shockingly weak field back in the day.

As for Djokovic's 2011 season - in respect of winning majors alone I happen to agree it was more impressive than Federer's 06 "beyond the stats".

But if you take the year overall with everything included, it's pretty much a wash, even "beyond the stats". Djoker had lost more matches and they weren't always against Fedal - Janko and Ferrer beat him at the YEC.

 

[Ricardo]

Yeahj, Nole had Murray too that year, playing good tennis. You're convincing me more and more.

It's a pity that some Federer fans are taking this personally. Some are engaging with the topic, but others are engaging with their own pants and claiming there's agendas. This is paranoid stuff. I'm not even a Nole fan, but I own up to it - he broke my heart in 2011 playing incredible tennis. I had hoped that after 2010 that Rafa might get at least one cheap season with the Gonzo's and Baggy's and Fozzy Bear's of this world, but then Djokzilla came ranging over the mountaintops, the baddest beast in history...

baddest in history really? if he was, then past his prime daddy Fed wouldn't even have a shot at beating him. This is a joke and so are you :lolz:

know who looks bad now?