Federer's Schedule for 2016

[Front242]

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

 

[Fiero425]

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

It's all downhill for the Scot IMO! It's a shame he's let things get to this point; physically and psychologically! :cover :nono

 

[Front242]

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

It's all downhill for the Scot IMO! It's a shame he's let things get to this point; physically and psychologically! :cover :nono

I've no doubt he'll pick things up personally eventhough I'm no fan to put it mildly.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Federer has left his name on in the Rome entry list as well. So, there is a chance that he may play all three clay masters events. Of course, he can say no anytime he wants (as he has exemption from all mandatory events). But, the fact that he had allowed his name to stay on means he has not ruled out playing there at this point of time.

 

[Sundaymorningguy]

I think it is smart for match play purposes in case he can't start until later. He will at least want to get the match play in before Wimbledon as he wont want to miss that slam. I think we all know the French isn't likely to happen for him in terms of going very far I would say.

 

[Obsi]

That's 'cos he played much better players than Murray Prime Nadal. Not the guy we're seeing now.

Who was Federer's main rival in 2004. Nadal? No. Roddick. And Murray is a better player than Roddick was in 2004.

Not in 2016 he's not. At his best yes but right now, no he's not.

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

Remember, I said the gap between Federer (when he dominated) and No. 2 was never as big as between Djokovic and Murray now. So, we're talking here about ATP rankings and its period is the immediate past 52 weeks. Therefore, we need to compare Murray's results in the last 12 months to Roddick's in 2014.


Grand Slams
Murray didn't lose before a forth round. Roddick lost in the second round of French Open. They both made one final but Murray also reached one semifinal unlike Roddick.
Won–Lost
Murray 19–4
Roddick 15–4

WTF
Murray went out in the round-robin stage and Roddick reached the semifinal.

Masters
Murray didn't lose before a third round. Roddick lost in the first round of Rome. Murray won 2 titles (Madrid & Montreal) and Roddick just one (Miami).
Win–Loss
Murray 23–5
Roddick 19–5

Titles
Murray 4
Roddick 4

Overall Win–Loss
Murray 60-12 (83%)
Roddick 74–18 (80%)


As you can see, the only statistic where Roddick is ahead of Murray is WTF. Probably, Murray in the last 12 months is a better player than Roddick in 2004.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As per the original schedule, Fed wanted to take 9 weeks off from the end of IW tourney.
Now, Ironically, he had 10 weeks off since the end of AO. Good to see him
practicing in Montecarlo. Hope, he wins at least one of MC or Rome this year.

 

[Front242]

Who was Federer's main rival in 2004. Nadal? No. Roddick. And Murray is a better player than Roddick was in 2004.

Not in 2016 he's not. At his best yes but right now, no he's not.

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

Remember, I said the gap between Federer (when he dominated) and No. 2 was never as big as between Djokovic and Murray now. So, we're talking here about ATP rankings and its period is the immediate past 52 weeks. Therefore, we need to compare Murray's results in the last 12 months to Roddick's in 2014.


Grand Slams
Murray didn't lose before a forth round. Roddick lost in the second round of French Open. They both made one final but Murray also reached one semifinal unlike Roddick.
Won–Lost
Murray 19–4
Roddick 15–4

WTF
Murray went out in the round-robin stage and Roddick reached the semifinal.

Masters
Murray didn't lose before a third round. Roddick lost in the first round of Rome. Murray won 2 titles (Madrid & Montreal) and Roddick just one (Miami).
Win–Loss
Murray 23–5
Roddick 19–5

Titles
Murray 4
Roddick 4

Overall Win–Loss
Murray 60-12 (83%)
Roddick 74–18 (80%)


As you can see, the only statistic where Roddick is ahead of Murray is WTF. Probably, Murray in the last 12 months is a better player than Roddick in 2004.

The difference between Federer and Nadal was over 7500 at one stage when they were 1 and 2 respectively. As I said a few pages ago, there's no comparison between Nadal and Murray. Being that far ahead of Nadal is a far greater achievement than being double Murray.

 

[Front242]

^ Also, this is a very weak era right now and there was a far stronger top 10 in 2004 so the comparison of Murray now versus Roddick in 2004 is completely irrelevant given that Roddick was playing against a much stronger field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_ATP_Tour

 

[isabelle]

As per the original schedule, Fed wanted to take 9 weeks off from the end of IW tourney.
Now, Ironically, he had 10 weeks off since the end of AO. Good to see him
practicing in Montecarlo. Hope, he wins at least one of MC or Rome this year.

it'll be difficult for him to win a MS on clay, especially after a long injury pause

 

[Obsi]

Not in 2016 he's not. At his best yes but right now, no he's not.

^ Just check his last 2 tournaments for starters. Roddick won Miami in 2004. Murray lost in the 3rd round. In Indian Wells he lost to the mighty Delbonis. Insert sarcasm here. Also in the 3rd round.

Remember, I said the gap between Federer (when he dominated) and No. 2 was never as big as between Djokovic and Murray now. So, we're talking here about ATP rankings and its period is the immediate past 52 weeks. Therefore, we need to compare Murray's results in the last 12 months to Roddick's in 2014.


Grand Slams
Murray didn't lose before a forth round. Roddick lost in the second round of French Open. They both made one final but Murray also reached one semifinal unlike Roddick.
Won–Lost
Murray 19–4
Roddick 15–4

WTF
Murray went out in the round-robin stage and Roddick reached the semifinal.

Masters
Murray didn't lose before a third round. Roddick lost in the first round of Rome. Murray won 2 titles (Madrid & Montreal) and Roddick just one (Miami).
Win–Loss
Murray 23–5
Roddick 19–5

Titles
Murray 4
Roddick 4

Overall Win–Loss
Murray 60-12 (83%)
Roddick 74–18 (80%)


As you can see, the only statistic where Roddick is ahead of Murray is WTF. Probably, Murray in the last 12 months is a better player than Roddick in 2004.

The difference between Federer and Nadal was over 7500 at one stage when they were 1 and 2 respectively. As I said a few pages ago, there's no comparison between Nadal and Murray. Being that far ahead of Nadal is a far greater achievement than being double Murray.

The domination of Djokovic over Nadal in 2011 and early 2012 when Novak won 7 times in a row is a far greater achievement than Federer's 7500 points over Nadal (at that time Rafa didn't reach his prime on hard courts yet).

^ Also, this is a very weak era right now and there was a far stronger top 10 in 2004 so the comparison of Murray now versus Roddick in 2004 is completely irrelevant given that Roddick was playing against a much stronger field.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_ATP_Tour

Can you provide an argument as to why Top 10 in 2004 were far stronger than the current Top 10?

 

[Front242]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now. Re Djokovic's domination of Nadal in 2011, you play the field, not just one player and no one has dominated a 4 year period in the same fashion as Federer from 2004-2007.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now. Re Djokovic's domination of Nadal in 2011, you play the field, not just one player and no one has dominated a 4 year period in the same fashion as Federer from 2004-2007.

Front.. let me get this straight,, are you saying that the players Federer faced (2004-2007) greater than the top 20 players that Djoker is currently carving up with ease?

 

[Front242]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now. Re Djokovic's domination of Nadal in 2011, you play the field, not just one player and no one has dominated a 4 year period in the same fashion as Federer from 2004-2007.

Front.. let me get this straight,, are you saying that the players Federer faced (2004-2007) greater than the top 20 players that Djoker is currently carving up with ease?

I specifically named 2004 but even so, yes. 2004 top 10: Roddick (slam winner and world #1 end of 2003 and start of 2004), Hewitt (2 time slam winner and still very good at this time), Safin (2 time slam winner), Moya (slam winner), Henman (solid player in his day), Coria (clay courter but a very good one), Agassi (8 time slam winner), Nalbandian (say no more. As talented as they come and could destroy anyone on any given day when he set his mind to it) and Gaudio (slam winner). If you want to venture to top 20 you had Youzhny, Robredo, Cañas, Grosjean, Haas. All decent players. Really think Ferrer, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga or Gasquet are ever going to win a slam ? Neither do I.

 

[Fiero425]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now. Re Djokovic's domination of Nadal in 2011, you play the field, not just one player and no one has dominated a 4 year period in the same fashion as Federer from 2004-2007.

Front.. let me get this straight,, are you saying that the players Federer faced (2004-2007) greater than the top 20 players that Djoker is currently carving up with ease?

I specifically named 2004 but even so, yes. 2004 top 10: Roddick (slam winner and world #1 end of 2003 and start of 2004), Hewitt (2 time slam winner and still very good at this time), Safin (2 time slam winner), Moya (slam winner), Henman (solid player in his day), Coria (clay courter but a very good one), Agassi (8 time slam winner), Nalbandian (say no more. As talented as they come and could destroy anyone on any given day when he set his mind to it) and Gaudio (slam winner). If you want to venture to top 20 you had Youzhny, Robredo, Cañas, Grosjean, Haas. All decent players. Really think Ferrer, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga or Gasquet are ever going to win a slam ? Neither do I.

So far they've been lucky to even make one major final; it's so sad! Back in the day we had Pioline, Phillippoussis, Rios, and so many others to shake up finals! These days it's the same 3 or 4 players and it's gotten old; real old and boring! :cover uzzled :nono :angel:

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now. Re Djokovic's domination of Nadal in 2011, you play the field, not just one player and no one has dominated a 4 year period in the same fashion as Federer from 2004-2007.

Front.. let me get this straight,, are you saying that the players Federer faced (2004-2007) greater than the top 20 players that Djoker is currently carving up with ease?

I specifically named 2004 but even so, yes. 2004 top 10: Roddick (slam winner and world #1 end of 2003 and start of 2004), Hewitt (2 time slam winner and still very good at this time), Safin (2 time slam winner), Moya (slam winner), Henman (solid player in his day), Coria (clay courter but a very good one), Agassi (8 time slam winner), Nalbandian (say no more. As talented as they come and could destroy anyone on any given day when he set his mind to it) and Gaudio (slam winner). If you want to venture to top 20 you had Youzhny, Robredo, Cañas, Grosjean, Haas. All decent players. Really think Ferrer, Berdych, Nishikori, Tsonga or Gasquet are ever going to win a slam ? Neither do I.

Rafa, Murray and Stan are better all courts players than Safin, Hewlett and Roddick. It's not even close. ( I am on my cellphone but I may elaborate more in detail later unless brother Kieran jumps into this post.)

 

[Front242]

Nadal hasn't won a slam in 2 years and 3 years for Murray and there's a strong possibility neither will ever beat Djokovic again. So does that really make that comment relevant? No. They used to be better but this is 2016. Stan is the only one capable of winning a slam out of those 3 lately as the other 2 won't beat Novak. Also, in his prime Safin was definitely a far better all court player than Murray who is mostly defensive. Safin could blast winners from everywhere. Watch the AO '05 semi against Federer again. One of the best matches ever. Murray couldn't play like that in his dreams.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Nadal hasn't won a slam in 2 years and 3 years for Murray and there's a strong possibility neither will ever beat Djokovic again. So does that really make that comment relevant? No. They used to be better but this is 2016. Stan is the only one capable of winning a slam out of those 3 lately as the other 2 won't beat Novak. Also, in his prime Safin was definitely a far better all court player than Murray who is mostly defensive. Safin could blast winners from everywhere. Watch the AO '05 semi against Federer again. One of the best matches ever. Murray couldn't play like that in his dreams.

No Front... I felt Safin had more (combo) offensive fire power from both sides including serve than any tennis player EVER. However, Safin wasnt as good as all court player as Rafa and Murray or better on clay than Stan. (good grief, Front could say that the sky is fallin and Fiero would cosign it with a like)

 

[Front242]

^ Get over the likes, it's the same with Nadal fans in every thread. You don't have to look too far. I only said Safin was a better all court player than Murray if you noticed above because the match would be over before he'd dig himself into a massive rut like Murray whose overly defensive game cripples him. The few times Murray actually plays aggressively he can be much more effective against the field but it doesn't come naturally at all to him and he soon reverts back to being a pusher of the highest order. Maybe you could rank him right up there as one of the best all court pushers but that's not much of a compliment I'm afraid.

 

[the AntiPusher]

^ Get over the likes, it's the same with Nadal fans in every thread. You don't have to look too far. I only said Safin was a better all court player than Murray if you noticed above because the match would be over before he'd dig himself into a massive rut like Murray whose overly defensive game cripples him. The few times Murray actually plays aggressively he can be much more effective against the field but it doesn't come naturally at all to him and he soon reverts back to being a pusher of the highest order. Maybe you could rank him right up there as one of the best all court pushers but that's not much of a compliment I'm afraid.

Safin biggest success came on the hard courts.. Murray has won titles (GS) on grass and hard courts. However, Safin did totally destroyed Djoker at SW19 by hitting through him. At this point, I think its the only way to truly neutralize him at a GS is what Safin and Stan did last year at RG.