Fedalovic Wars

[Fiero425]

I didn't say anything about Novak's performance in 2016 or how it compares to Andy's. I was merely saying that 2016 was arguably the best single-Slam season in the Open Era. Is there a better one? I'll hang up and wait for your response to what I actually wrote.

Anyhow, bitch all you want, but Novak let the #1 slip from his grasp that year, fading in the second half. Andy deserves kudos for his amazing run to snatch the #1...he didn't "steal" it from Novak in the final, but won it fair and square. The points are what they are, and Andy earned the most.

Whatever! I can't argue w/ your kind of logic! As historians of the game, we can w/o a doubt come up w/ more stellar seasons of an also-ran like Murray! I must be missing something b/c this convo is off the charts insane to me! I haven't started drinking or doing a CBD gummy yet so I can't explain it! You got my head spinning though! THANKS!

 

[El Dude]

Whatever! I can't argue w/ your kind of logic! As historians of the game, we can w/o a doubt come up w/ more stellar seasons of an also-ran like Murray! I must be missing something b/c this convo is off the charts insane to me! I haven't started drinking or doing a CBD gummy yet so I can't explain it! You got my head spinning though! THANKS!

I thought I was being pretty straightforward. The question, again:

"What is the best season involving a single Slam title?"

Andy's 2016 gets my vote. Do you have a better option? But instead, you took it as an opportunity to vituperate about Novak being robbed/underappreciated/etc. Your head isn't spinning, you are .

 

[Moxie]

I thought I was being pretty straightforward. The question, again:

"What is the best season involving a single Slam title?"

Andy's 2016 gets my vote. Do you have a better option? But instead, you took it as an opportunity to vituperate about Novak being robbed/underappreciated/etc. Your head isn't spinning, you are .

At the risk of joining this conversation, @Fiero425 has always had a bee in his bonnet about 2016. He blames Andy for pressing so hard that year that he endangered his career, which I think is hard to prove. Andy's hips were a continuous-use injury, IMO. But, as to that year, and to Andy's place on your list: Murray was the first new #1 in 12 years, was it? And I think your ranking system rates the rankings of players they beat, am I wrong?

 

[El Dude]

At the risk of joining this conversation, @Fiero425 has always had a bee in his bonnet about 2016. He blames Andy for pressing so hard that year that he endangered his career, which I think is hard to prove. Andy's hips were a continuous-use injury, IMO. But, as to that year, and to Andy's place on your list: Murray was the first new #1 in 12 years, was it? And I think your ranking system rates the rankings of players they beat, am I wrong?

No, it just goes on results - W at 250s, F or better at 500s, SF or better at Masters, etc. I waste a lot of hours on tennis stats, but that's a level of complexity beyond even my own nerdery. Plus, current ranking is often enough indicative of how good a player actually is, so I'm not sure it would add anything.

But yeah, I know Fiero has a special place in his heart for 2016. In the end, though, it is Andy's crowning achievement - the one year in which he rose above the three best players in tennis history (we'll ignore the fact that Fedal sucked that year). I mean, no one else did what he did or reached #1 from 2004 to 2021 when Medvedev snuck in.

 

[Fiero425]

At the risk of joining this conversation, @Fiero425 has always had a bee in his bonnet about 2016. He blames Andy for pressing so hard that year that he endangered his career, which I think is hard to prove. Andy's hips were a continuous-use injury, IMO. But, as to that year, and to Andy's place on your list: Murray was the first new #1 in 12 years, was it? And I think your ranking system rates the rankings of players they beat, am I wrong?

What would y'all do w/o me being an irritant & keeping the action going around here? I'm flattered you recall my diatribes in such great detail! Forgive me if I have to admit, I don't even half-try to remember who said what unless it's insane Nadal fandom!

 

[El Dude]

What would y'all do w/o me being an irritant & keeping the action going around here? I'm flattered you recall my diatribes in such great detail! Forgive me if I have to admit, I don't even half-try to remember who said what unless it's insane Nadal fandom!

We love you, Fiero - and your diatribes are quite entertaining.

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

If Roger Federer had won the 2019 Wimbledon title, do you guys think he would have retired immediately after?

I have always thought the answer to this is yes. Roger was on the decline, and that was his opportunity to ride off to the sunset with a slam win like Sampras did at the 2002 US Open.

 

[shawnbm]

^ Yes--I think that would have happened, perhaps playing Basel one last time and then saying ciao.

 

[the AntiPusher]

If Roger Federer had won the 2019 Wimbledon title, do you guys think he would have retired immediately after?

I have always thought the answer to this is yes. Roger was on the decline, and that was his opportunity to ride off to the sunset with a slam win like Sampras did at the 2002 US Open.

Hell No! Roger knew the youngins (Rafa and Novak) had already won over 12-14 majors apiece and he had to keep playing to maintain his GS titles lead. It was for tennis fans the equivalent of Roger Maris single season homerun record by Sosa, McQuire and the goat Barry Bonds.

 

[Moxie]

^ Yes--I think that would have happened, perhaps playing Basel one last time and then saying ciao.

He didn't even play Basel one last time when he DID retire. He retired at the Laver Cup, which he would have done if he'd won Wimbledon in 2019, even if he did retire, but I don't agree that he would have, if he'd have won that Wimbledon. As it was, he didn't retire for 3 more years! He like tennis and the travel too much. And he was optimistic, so he'd have figured he might have yet another one in him. At the time, that Wimbledon would have been #21, and looked like an insurance one to keep Roger on top. But, in the end, it still wouldn't have been enough.

 

[shawnbm]

He didn't even play Basel one last time when he DID retire. He retired at the Laver Cup, which he would have done if he'd won Wimbledon in 2019, even if he did retire, but I don't agree that he would have, if he'd have won that Wimbledon. As it was, he didn't retire for 3 more years! He like tennis and the travel too much. And he was optimistic, so he'd have figured he might have yet another one in him. At the time, that Wimbledon would have been #21, and looked like an insurance one to keep Roger on top. But, in the end, it still wouldn't have been enough.

I did not realize that Moxie. Maybe he would have continued, but it would have been a nice way to go out. Alas, it was not to be. It seems that by the end of next year he will only have two records by himself--the consecutive weeks at number one and five straight US Opens, maybe the eight SW19 crowns (that jury is out still). Most everything else will have been gobbled up by the Serbian Slayer.

 

[Moxie]

I did not realize that Moxie. Maybe he would have continued, but it would have been a nice way to go out. Alas, it was not to be. It seems that by the end of next year he will only have two records by himself--the consecutive weeks at number one and five straight US Opens, maybe the eight SW19 crowns (that jury is out still). Most everything else will have been gobbled up by the Serbian Slayer.

Basel invited him for a special ceremony or something after he retired at LC, and he didn't even do that. I have never understood that.

 

[Fiero425]

If Roger Federer had won the 2019 Wimbledon title, do you guys think he would have retired immediately after?

I have always thought the answer to this is yes. Roger was on the decline, and that was his opportunity to ride off to the sunset with a slam win like Sampras did at the 2002 US Open.

I asked or suggested the same thing for Federer in 2012 & 2017; retire after winning a major, but his ego wouldn't allow it w/ 2 players on his HEELS! He got 3 more near the end, but it took over 5 years to get there in 2017! If he had won 2019, I'd of suggested the same thing, but this crowd couldn't stand the idea!

 

[PhiEaglesfan712]

My guess is that Federer would have went the Sampras route. If he had won 2019 Wimbledon, he would have not played another singles match, but I think he waits to officially retire. (Remember, although Sampras never played after the 2002 US Open win, he didn't officially retire until the following year, at the 2003 US Open.) Roger played his last match at 2021 Wimbledon, but didn't officially retire until the following year.

So, I guess Roger doesn't play the 2019 US Open or 2020 AO, and then does not come back after the pandemic, but he doesn't officially announce it until Wimbledon or IW 2021.

 

[Moxie]

Basel invited him for a special ceremony or something after he retired at LC, and he didn't even do that. I have never understood that.

Roger Federer won't have another retirement ceremony at hometown Basel tournament | Tennis.com

"We would have liked to have celebrated Roger's years of success at our tournament, but understand that Roger needs more time," said tournament director Roger Brennwald.

www.tennis.com

All he had to do was roll out of bed and walk down the road, but he didn't do it. And he never has done. What's up with that?

 

[atttomole]

I asked or suggested the same thing for Federer in 2012 & 2017; retire after winning a major, but his ego wouldn't allow it w/ 2 players on his HEELS! He got 3 more near the end, but it took over 5 years to get there in 2017! If he had won 2019, I'd of suggested the same thing, but this crowd couldn't stand the idea!

And Djokovic. I remember you disappeared when Charlie beat Djokovic at Wimbledon last year. That hurt you so much, and I remember calling you out to console you. For years you have been complaining about youngsters who lack guts. When one youngster with guts popped up and beat Djokovic, you seemed to change your mind about it. History could repeat itself and I guess you would like Djokovic to o retire after losing on Sunday.

 

[Fiero425]

And Djokovic. I remember you disappeared when Charlie beat Djokovic at Wimbledon last year. That hurt you so much, and I remember calling you out to console you. For years you have been complaining about youngsters who lack guts. When one youngster with guts popped up and beat Djokovic, you seemed to change your mind about it. History could repeat itself and I guess you would like Djokovic to o retire after losing on Sunday.

Call me out! I seem to remember some kind of banter, but I have no real dog in this hunt! Djokovic has all the records and Carlos is the heir apparent! I just don't watch as much tennis as I had once! It's just not that interesting unless a new record is being acknowledged like Novak winning his 25th major! I've told you guys, this mindless aggressive streak in tennis is boring AF; esp. w/ the ladies! Swiatek holds onto #1, but there's no real dominant player! There can be 8 majors w/ 8 different winners! That's bizarre after growing up w/ consistant winning by the likes of Court, Evert, Navratilova, Graf, & Seles! I will keep up w/ what's going on, but dount I'll savor every match on TV as I once had!

 

[Moxie]

And Djokovic. I remember you disappeared when Charlie beat Djokovic at Wimbledon last year. That hurt you so much, and I remember calling you out to console you. For years you have been complaining about youngsters who lack guts. When one youngster with guts popped up and beat Djokovic, you seemed to change your mind about it. History could repeat itself and I guess you would like Djokovic to o retire after losing on Sunday.

In fairness, Fiero said, "If Federer had won," he'd have called for him to retire. So, the better question is: If Novak wins on Sunday, would Fiero suggest he retire? It's an interesting question, for everyone. Surely, he'll play the Olympics, but after that? Win or lose the gold medal, if he wins #25 on Sunday, what's to keep him going after Paris?

 

[Nadalfan2013]

In fairness, Fiero said, "If Federer had won," he'd have called for him to retire. So, the better question is: If Novak wins on Sunday, would Fiero suggest he retire? It's an interesting question, for everyone. Surely, he'll play the Olympics, but after that? Win or lose the gold medal, if he wins #25 on Sunday, what's to keep him going after Paris?

Djokovic knows that not only he needs the historic Gold medal but that he also needs at least 35 slam titles in order to be considered the GOAT, due to his inflated record because of Nadal's hundreds of injuries. The fact that he would lead Nadal by only 2-3 slams despite Nadal playing part-time for most of his career is embarrassing for Djokovic and that's why true tennis experts don't consider him the GOAT unless he can lead by at least 10+ slams.

 

[nehmeth]

In fairness, Fiero said, "If Federer had won," he'd have called for him to retire. So, the better question is: If Novak wins on Sunday, would Fiero suggest he retire? It's an interesting question, for everyone. Surely, he'll play the Olympics, but after that? Win or lose the gold medal, if he wins #25 on Sunday, what's to keep him going after Paris?

Obviously he got crushed in the Wimbledon final by an ascendant Carlos. The Spaniard’s best level was just superior to anything Nole was able to reach on that day. Credit to Novak… at 37 he made his fifth attempt for the gold. He faced the reigning Roland Garros champion in the gold medal match and prevailed in two fantastic sets of tennis.

When asked if this completed the puzzle, his answer was “Yes.” If he retires tomorrow he has the career Golden Slam, 24 Slams, two (2) Golden Masters which neither Fed nor Nadal even have one. He has a winning h2h against future greats Sinner and Alcaraz. I think he would be the GOTE of the GOAT era. I would be happy for him if he hangs it up at this point.