Federer To Djokovic: This Year Will Be Hard To Repeat

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
He won RG and soundly beat Djokovic in the final. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take Djokovic’s clay season over Stan’s. Being the best on a surface in a given year means winning a slam on it. That’s just a common sense requirement. Ask Djokovic how much he cares about MC and Rome after he lost another RG final.

You are conflating two different things: the best clay player of 2015 with the most prestigeous clay trophy.</blockquote>
Not at all. They are one and the same. Using the same faulty logic we could call Roger the best grass player the past two years because he played in and won a warmup tourney while Djokovic didn’t play. MC and Rome are warmups to the main event, regular season vs. postseason, etc.</blockquote>
So you say Cilic was the best hard-court player in second part of 2014 because he won USO? I don’t think so. Wawrinka’s fluke at Roland Garros certainly doesn’t mean he was the best clay court player this year, like Denis pointed out it only means he won the slam.

Cilic absolutely was the best hard court player in the North American stretch last year. It wasn't Tsonga or Federer or anyone else.

Honestly this shouldn't even be an argument, 1 GS is significantly better than 2 MS titles. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take 2 MS titles over tennis' greatest glory (winning a slam).

 

[Denis]

Mastoor wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
He won RG and soundly beat Djokovic in the final. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take Djokovic’s clay season over Stan’s. Being the best on a surface in a given year means winning a slam on it. That’s just a common sense requirement. Ask Djokovic how much he cares about MC and Rome after he lost another RG final.

You are conflating two different things: the best clay player of 2015 with the most prestigeous clay trophy.</blockquote>
Not at all. They are one and the same. Using the same faulty logic we could call Roger the best grass player the past two years because he played in and won a warmup tourney while Djokovic didn’t play. MC and Rome are warmups to the main event, regular season vs. postseason, etc.</blockquote>
So you say Cilic was the best hard-court player in second part of 2014 because he won USO? I don’t think so. Wawrinka’s fluke at Roland Garros certainly doesn’t mean he was the best clay court player this year, like Denis pointed out it only means he won the slam.</blockquote>
Cilic absolutely was the best hard court player in the North American stretch last year. It wasn’t Tsonga or Federer or anyone else. Honestly this shouldn’t even be an argument, 1 GS is significantly better than 2 MS titles. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take 2 MS titles over tennis’ greatest glory (winning a slam).

You are implying we are saying these things (preferring MS wins over a GS) and therefore idiots. Neither are true.

 

In addition, I don't understand how you can compare the very short grass season with the much longer clay season.

 

Also, we are talking about the clay season. What sense is there to reduce that season to one event? The clay season alone comprizes out of 6-7 tournaments. By your logic, it doesn't matter what you do before. That's simply wrong. If you win Roland Garros you are the best player at the French Open. It does not necessarily mean you are the best player of the entire season. That's just dumb reasoning. Obviously, the FO being the most important title during the clay swing carries significant weight in determining whether a player is the best player of the clay season, but since the clay season consists out of more than one event, you need to take that into account too. Giving Stan's abismal record entering the French, and Novak winning two events (including Rome) and reaching the final, Novak was the best player of the clay season.

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
Mastoor wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
<blockquote>
Denis wrote:
<blockquote>
Twisted wrote:
He won RG and soundly beat Djokovic in the final. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take Djokovic’s clay season over Stan’s. Being the best on a surface in a given year means winning a slam on it. That’s just a common sense requirement. Ask Djokovic how much he cares about MC and Rome after he lost another RG final.

You are conflating two different things: the best clay player of 2015 with the most prestigeous clay trophy.</blockquote>
Not at all. They are one and the same. Using the same faulty logic we could call Roger the best grass player the past two years because he played in and won a warmup tourney while Djokovic didn’t play. MC and Rome are warmups to the main event, regular season vs. postseason, etc.</blockquote>
So you say Cilic was the best hard-court player in second part of 2014 because he won USO? I don’t think so. Wawrinka’s fluke at Roland Garros certainly doesn’t mean he was the best clay court player this year, like Denis pointed out it only means he won the slam.</blockquote>
Cilic absolutely was the best hard court player in the North American stretch last year. It wasn’t Tsonga or Federer or anyone else. Honestly this shouldn’t even be an argument, 1 GS is significantly better than 2 MS titles. Only the biggest idiot in the world would take 2 MS titles over tennis’ greatest glory (winning a slam).</blockquote>
You are implying we are saying these things (preferring MS wins over a GS) and therefore idiots. Neither are true. In addition, I don’t understand how you can compare the very short grass season with the much longer clay season. Also, we are talking about the clay season. What sense is there to reduce that season to one event? The clay season alone comprizes out of 6-7 tournaments. By your logic, it doesn’t matter what you do before. That’s simply wrong. If you win Roland Garros you are the best player at the French Open. It does not necessarily mean you are the best player of the entire season. That’s just dumb reasoning. Obviously, the FO being the most important title during the clay swing carries significant weight in determining whether a player is the best player of the clay season, but since the clay season consists out of more than one event, you need to take that into account too. Giving Stan’s abismal record entering the French, and Novak winning two events (including Rome) and reaching the final, Novak was the best player of the clay season.

There are only 4 big clay events every year, the 3 MS events and the 1 GS and it spans about 2 months.  At the end of the day the GS is what it's all about.  The MS events are used as warmups by the top guys for what is way more important.  MC and Rome gave Djokovic some nice points and money, and a nice little +1 to the much less meaningful MS titles.  RG gave Stan tons of GLORY on top of the points and money.  What's better, going 16-1 with MC and Rome or going 12-3 with RG?  Stan's name would soon be lost in history if he didn't win a slam let alone 2.  It doesn't matter if he had won 10 MS events if he won no slam.  Winning more slams, particularly RG, is what will keep Djokovic rising the ranks of all time greats.  It won't be his record total of MS events (assuming he has that record when all is said and done) that rises him up farther.

If we wanted to talk about who is the best on clay year round, and not weigh it VERY heavily towards the main event, maybe we can include guys who are playing small mickey mouse tournaments on clay all year before and after RG.  To my mind the best on the surface in a given year is the person who won the slam on it, period.  This means it should be an open and closed book on who is the best on clay and grass every year.  Only HC can be a debate if the slams are split.

 

[Denis]

We're going in circles here. If you want to reduce the clay season to Roland Garros, be my guest. I am a big fan of the MC and Rome tournaments, my favorite masters actually, so I won't go down that road.

 

[Billie]

We’re going in circles here. If you want to reduce the clay season to Roland Garros, be my guest. I am a big fan of the MC and Rome tournaments, my favorite masters actually, so I won’t go down that road.

Absolutely, they are all big for overall tennis career and especially for rankings during a season.  I could understand that people dismiss Nole's achievements during the clay season if he lost at FO early, but he made the final there as well.  Nobody sane can dismiss his results on clay this season.   If Stan made two Masters finals and lost there, but won RG, I would agree that Stan was the best player.

Hopefully Nole wins RG one of these years so they stop nagging how bad he is on clay without RG title. ;-)

 

[DarthFed]

My dear Billie I think you are overrating two things: the importance of MS wins for legacy purposes and the "achievement" of losing a GS final.  It's why I've said Roger's 2914 and 2015 are nothing to be impressed with since he hasn't done anything of note when you get right down to it. Now if making finals is a huge deal to you then Roger has done great the past couple years. That's just difference of opinion

 

[ClayDeath]

it is all about the slams, masters titles, davis cup titles, years at #1, and head to head against your top rivals when they were in their primes. in that very order.

 

nobody really gives a damn about WTF or ATP tour finals in the long run scheme of things. it is a bloody useless event they have been trying to save for 2 decades now. they throw a lot of money at the top 8 players. it has importance when the #1 rank has to be decided otherwise it is a useless exercise.

 

djokovic leads the planet by 10 million points. we kept an eye on the event since we are tennis junkies but the world doesn't give a damn about this event.

 

[ClayDeath]

Denis wrote:
We’re going in circles here. If you want to reduce the clay season to Roland Garros, be my guest. I am a big fan of the MC and Rome tournaments, my favorite masters actually, so I won’t go down that road.

Absolutely, they are all big for overall tennis career and especially for rankings during a season. I could understand that people dismiss Nole’s achievements during the clay season if he lost at FO early, but he made the final there as well. Nobody sane can dismiss his results on clay this season. If Stan made two Masters finals and lost there, but won RG, I would agree that Stan was the best player. Hopefully Nole wins RG one of these years so they stop nagging how bad he is on clay without RG title.

djokovic is among the best on clay. only Federer and Rafa were better in this era.

but Roger got old and Rafa ran away. so now beating them on clay is not all that significant as far as history is concerned. roger is 35 in august and rafa is just a mere shadow of what he used to be.

Stan did play a match of a lifetime and ambushed Djokovic at the RG final. he absolutely went for broke and it worked out.

to Stan's credit he did say that he was prepared and had the game to beat the best in the world. he also added that he was not scared of Djokovic. that went a long way. he had to have that belief.

 

 

[DarthFed]

it is all about the slams, masters titles, davis cup titles, years at #1, and head to head against your top rivals when they were in their primes. in that very order. nobody really gives a damn about WTF or ATP tour finals in the long run scheme of things. it is a bloody useless event they have been trying to save for 2 decades now. they throw a lot of money at the top 8 players. it has importance when the #1 rank has to be decided otherwise it is a useless exercise. djokovic leads the planet by 10 million points. we kept an eye on the event since we are tennis junkies but the world doesn’t give a damn about this event.

YEC is a bigger deal than master titles.  Nadal not winning the YEC is a bigger deal than him not winning Miami and Paris.  Everyone knows Rafa can play well on slow outdoor hard courts so who cares that he somehow hasn't won Miami.  Indoors is a different story, winning the YEC would be a nice boost and prove that he can get it done there.  Roger has won RG and numerous Hamburg and Madrid titles, I don't see it being a big deal that he never won Rome or MC.

And Davis Cup is just a great team accomplishment.  Roger didn't win Davis Cup in his prime because Stan badly underperformed.  Then last year Stan played great and Switzerland finally wins one.  If anything Roger individually did worse in Davis Cup last year than he had in most other years because he lost a match to Monfils in the finals.  Would I hold it against Federer or anyone else if they never won Davis Cup?  No way, you can't choose what country you are born in.

 

[Billie]

My dear Billie I think you are overrating two things: the importance of MS wins for legacy purposes and the “achievement” of losing a GS final. It’s why I’ve said Roger’s 2914 and 2015 are nothing to be impressed with since he hasn’t done anything of note when you get right down to it. Now if making finals is a huge deal to you then Roger has done great the past couple years. That’s just difference of opinion

Well the world would be pretty boring if everybody thought the same   It is best to win a major, but reaching a final is better than losing in the first round of the same tournament.  Call me crazy, but that is what I think.

I absolutely respect what Federer has done in the last couple of years, he trains hard, has desire and loves to play.  Wins tournaments, gets to finals, plays hard, has fun.  Just because he doesn't win the tournaments you want, that doesn't make him "nothing to be impressed with".  You are lucky that I am not a Federer fan otherwise I would have been on your case more than you can imagine.

And of course I love to poke at you  as I know you never take all this tennis talk personally

 

[DarthFed]

Twisted wrote:
My dear Billie I think you are overrating two things: the importance of MS wins for legacy purposes and the “achievement” of losing a GS final. It’s why I’ve said Roger’s 2914 and 2015 are nothing to be impressed with since he hasn’t done anything of note when you get right down to it. Now if making finals is a huge deal to you then Roger has done great the past couple years. That’s just difference of opinion

Well the world would be pretty boring if everybody thought the same It is best to win a major, but reaching a final is better than losing in the first round of the same tournament. Call me crazy, but that is what I think. I absolutely respect what Federer has done in the last couple of years, he trains hard, has desire and loves to play. Wins tournaments, gets to finals, plays hard, has fun. Just because he doesn’t win the tournaments you want, that doesn’t make him “nothing to be impressed with”. You are lucky that I am not a Federer fan otherwise I would have been on your case more than you can imagine. And of course I love to poke at you as I know you never take all this tennis talk personally

Well if he makes a GS final in 2914 at the age of 933 then I will be extremely impressed.  Not even Yoda could do that  B-)