Federer's Schedule for 2016

[Obsi]

^ I don't need an argument. Just look at the players then versus now.

You disqualify yourself from being taken seriosly as you imply it's obvious that Top 10 in 2004 were stroger than Top 10 now. It can not be proven.

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.

Prime Djokovic never played 4 years in a row against a weak competition like Federer from 2004-2007.

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).

Not one player you listed is a GOAT candidate. The current Top 10 from No. 2 downwards are:

Murray (2 slams and counting)
Federer (GOAT candidate, 17 slams and counting)
Wawrinka (2 slams and counting)
Nadal (GOAT candidate, 14 slams and counting)
Nishikori (no slams but he is still young)
Berdych (no slams but his career is far from over)
Ferrer (no slams but his career is not over yet)
Tsonga (no slams but his career is far from over)
Cilic (slam winner)

 

[Great Hands]

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.

But Safin only played like that once in a blue moon. You can't take the best match a player ever played and use that as your argument. uttely ridcualous.

i know you like first strike teenis, but you shoudln't le that affect your judgemetn of apleyr's worth.

i find players who 'balst winners from everywhere' very boring anyway.

jsut caouse you happent o like someone's style of play more, doesn't mean they are a better player. murray and safin are equal in slam count, and murray's overall record at slams and masters is far superiro.

thread: is there anyone else not obseesed with 'attacking' tennis?

it baffles me how some tennis fans can have such a low opinion of andy murray, a player who is one of the greatest returners of all time, one of the great movers of all time, who has exquisite touch (second only to Roger among current players in this regard), a player who has so many diffrent shots (inlcuding being the best lobber currently on tour), [a player who has a great ability to vary the pace, spin and angles of the ball,] a player who changes his tactics based upon playing coniditons, weather, opponent (if you're fond of the subtelties of the game rather than just ball bashing and winners, this aspect of his game is fascianting to watch), and a player with som eof the most spectacualr defensive skills ever seen. o.k., my favourite things to watch in tennis are great returning and great defending, and he's an all-time great in these areas, so i particualrl like to watch him, but i'm surpidsed that some fans here can't appreciate a player who is so good in so many ways, and an all--time great in certain areas, even if he's not their favopu8rtite style of player. i try to appreciate all styles of play, not just one.

the funnt thing is that wherever murray plays he gets lots of crowd support and is very po;lar, - undetandably, becausde of all th ereason i metnjoend above. but for some reason he seems far less poluar on tennis forums. as an andy fan, i have very littel company. i can only conlude that tennis forums do not accuratelty refelct the views of tennis fans in general.

does anyone else out there actually enjoy counter-punching play, Does anyone actually, like me, prefer it to offensive play? I find aggressive, first strike tennis much less interesting to watch than rallies that have time to breathe, develop and build tension.

My favourite things to watch in tennis are:
1. Amazing defense and returns
2. Great hands/touch/feel
3. Variety of shot, pace and spin
4. Long rallies
5. Cat and mouse play
6. Point construction
7. Tactical adjustments

Can you see why I'm a Murray fan? Some of the things he does so well are more subtle pleasures - it's not all about pounding winners. His ability to place the ball in awkward positions for opponents, his preternatural anticipation of, for example, smashes. His returning is amazing to see - the way he steps in on the second serve and controls it - no other player has the hands to do that. His BH is a thing of beauty.

for me, the most exciting tennis is spectacualr defence, counterpunching, variety of shot, cat and mouse, tactical play and longer rallies. i prefer a long rally, where the players might not be going ofr winners ona very shot but they're moving each other arounf, lookign for an opening, varying the pace, varyingf the psin, giving the rally time to get going and build tension.

I find it strange that some tennis fans are so obsessed by tennis being ‘attacking’. I enjoy attacking tennis, but I find amazing defence even more exciting. [I like to see players chargint he lengthy of the xcourt to retrieve a ball.] For me, the greatest points of all time are the ones where a player looks out of it, they get back into into with mazing defence, the rally continies, and then there’s this tensin raised by the question ‘will the player that looked like they were going to win win the point anyway, or will the other play win it now, thus turning the tables? These are the points that get the crowd ooohing and ahhing. I like seeing players play cat and mouse, vary the spin and pace, attempting to maneouvre the ball and the opponent to create space and then win the point. This, to me, is more satisfying and interesting than first strike tennis. I mean, serve, retrun, winner, serve, return, unforced error. it’s kind of dull. And most very attacking players play higher risk tennis, which means they make plenty of unforced erros on shots 3 or 4, which makes for uninteresting rallies and uninteresting tennis. Murray is briliinat at all the things I love – couinterpunchig, showing great hands/touch/feel, playing different variteirs of shots, spins, pace and angles. He doesn’t just bash the ball, and he doesn’t necessarily go for a winner on the first striek (although soenmt6inmes he does), which makes for longer, more intersting, more fun rallies. I just find i9t amazing that he seems to be so unapprecitated on tennis forums. When he plays live, he gets lots of support, and crowds enhoy watchign him – understabdly, cause he’s a great, highly skilled player. I guess tennis forums are not accurate representattions of tennis fans.

And what is this obsession with winners too? Somemone can hit winners just cos there opponent is playing crap. And a rally can end in a winner and be dull – e.g. big serve, weak return, winner into open court. And a rally that ends on an unforced error could have been spectacvualt and itnersting, with lots of different shots along the way, attack and counter-attack, variety, lobs etc. I mean, sometimes I see an amacing long point that ends on an ue, and all people talk about is that it ends on an ue, forgetting all the fun of the rally that came before. I mean, just how short are people’s meemoreis? a bunch of goldfishes. it’s riducalos. i.e. looking at winners/ufe ratio stats literally tell you nothing at all about how entertaining the match was.

I mean, I udnestand people have differeny, tastes, but at tennis matches, ausidence seem to love longer rallies and defnece, like me. Where are these people on teenis forums? Are you out there somehere? Am I all alone?

the most exciting tennis is spectacualr defence, counterpunching, variety of shot, cat and mouse, tactical play and longer rallies. first strike tennis is dull dull, dull. serve, retrun, wiiner. serve, return , unforced error. boring boring norinh. i prefer a long rally, where the players might not be going ofr winners ona very shot but they're moving each other arounf, lookign for an opening, varying the pace, varyingf the psin, giving the rally time to get going and build tension.

 

[Front242]

Be honest, do you really think that that Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych are ever going to win a slam? If they had any chance it was years ago, not now. Most would say 100% no they won't so that's 3 on that list who qualify as weak competition right there. Tsonga's lone chance was his first and only slam final but he played nowhere near as well in the final as in the semi. So what if the players I named are not GOAT candidates. It's not only GOAT candidates who are very good players. My point was they are better than the 2016 top 10. Cilic won his lone slam after a doping ban. What does that tell you? As much as I'd like to see Nishikori win a slam he's not going to imo given his frail body. If he gets injured a lot in best of 3 being run ragged by the likes of Novak, what chance has he of winning 7 best of 5 matches? Again, his lone chance was against the juiced Cilic and he likely won't get another.

Roddick ended his career with a 5-4 h2h over Djokovic. Guess that must hurt since he's not a GOAT candidate.

 

[Great Hands]

^ 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.

[As a Murray fan, I'm going to wade in here.]

You may not like Murray's style of game, but you shoudln't le that affect your judgemetn of a pleyr's worth. jsut caouse you happent o like someone's style of play more, doesn't mean they are a better player. you need to be more objective.andy has won as many Grand Slams as Safin, and his overall record at slams and masters events is far superior to safin's. so just cause you don't happen to like his play, you should be able to see, objevtively, that he is a more succesful player than safin.

It baffles me how some tennis fans can have such a low opinion of Andy Murray, a player who is one of the greatest returners of all time, one of the great movers of all time, who has exquisite touch (second only to Roger among current players in this regard), a player who has so many different shots, a player who has a great ability to vary the pace, spin and angles of the ball, a player who changes his tactics based upon playing coniditons, weather, opponent (if you're fond of the subtleties of the game rather than just ball bashing and winners, this aspect of his game is fascinating to watch), and a player with some of the most spectacualr defensive skills ever seen.

Some of the things he does so well are more subtle pleasures - it's not all about pounding winners. His ability to place the ball in awkward positions for opponents, his preternatural anticipation of, for example, smashes. His returning is amazing to see - the way he steps in on the second serve and controls it - no other player has the hands to do that. His BH is a thing of beauty.

O.K., my favourite things to watch in tennis are great returning and great defending, and he's an all-time great in these areas, so I particularly like to watch him, but I'm surprised that some fans here can't appreciate a player who is so good in so many ways, and an all-time great in certain areas, even if he's not their favourite style of player. I try to appreciate all styles of play, not just one.

The funny thing is that wherever Murray plays he gets lots of crowd support and is very popular - understandably, because of all the reasons I mentioned above. But for some reason he seems far less popular on tennis forums. As an Andy fan, I have very little company. I can only conlude that tennis forums do not accurately reflect the views of tennis fans in general.






[i know you like first strike teenis, but you shoudln't le that affect your judgemetn of apleyr's worth.]

[and whereas marat only had one great player to deal wtih, fed, andy has had three. and he's still been more successful than safinh. so there. (and by the wya, i realyl liked safn's play. i jsut think it's possible to like lits of different styles of players!)]

 

[Front242]

Btw Federer's competition from 2004-2007 was no different than now. That's just a silly old myth and sour grapes from non fans due to how many slams the guy has compared to their favourite player. Novak's main competition for the past 2 years has been a 33/34 year old. Go back to sleep with your weak competition nonsense. The longer Federer and Nadal keep playing the longer this current weak era continues. Nadal is 30 in June and a mere shadow of his former self. Federer while still very good is almost 35. Again, feel free to keep harping on about weak competition in Federer's heyday next year when Federer is 36 and Nadal 31 and I'll continue to laugh my bollocks off.

 

[Front242]

For the record, Obsi I like Djokovic but you're giving Djokovic fans a bad name with this nonsense trolling of downplaying Federer's achievements and saying his most dominant period (2004-2007) and the most dominant stretch in men's tennis to date was because of weak competition. You need to wake up and realize players age and the same thing is happening now. Federer is old, very old for a professional tennis player and yet at almost 35 he's still Djokovic's main competition but of course it can't be that this is a weak era. No, of course not. I mean, the fact that Nadal and Murray can't beat Djokovic anymore must surely mean this is an ultra competitive era. Or wait...

Nadal is well past it and Murray is just plain not good enough to beat Novak either so you're left with who exactly who can challenge Novak? Stan in about 2 matches in 4 years? Federer in best of 3? Seriously, give things a bit more of a logical consideration before declaring Djokovic the second coming of Jesus and proclaiming him superior to everyone on tour when in fact, his 3 main competitors of the last few years are nothing like they once were. And that includes Murray who occasionally used to actually be able to beat him. And the rest are not slam contenders and you know it.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Be honest, do you really think that that Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych are ever going to win a slam? If they had any chance it was years ago, not now. Most would say 100% no they won't so that's 3 on that list who qualify as weak competition right there. Tsonga's lone chance was his first and only slam final but he played nowhere near as well in the final as in the semi. So what if the players I named are not GOAT candidates. It's not only GOAT candidates who are very good players. My point was they are better than the 2016 top 10. Cilic won his lone slam after a doping ban. What does that tell you? As much as I'd like to see Nishikori win a slam he's not going to imo given his frail body. If he gets injured a lot in best of 3 being run ragged by the likes of Novak, what chance has he of winning 7 best of 5 matches? Again, his lone chance was against the juiced Cilic and he likely won't get another.

Roddick ended his career with a 5-4 h2h over Djokovic. Guess that must hurt since he's not a GOAT candidate.

Front , Have you ever heard of the following:

Yannick Noah(won RG over Wilander)

Thomas Johannson(won AO over Safin)

Gastón Gaudio ( won RG over Coria)

Andres Gomez(won RG over Agassi)

Each of these champions were huge underdogs and their careers was near the end.

Yes, Djoker is a huge favorite but to discredit numerous ATP players by saying they have no chance is foolish and very ignorant on your part.

 

[Front242]

Only time will tell if it's ignorant on my part, AP but I'd be pretty happy putting large amounts of money down on Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych to never win a slam at this stage. There aren't so many guys capable of upsets these days.

 

[Kieran]

I actually would side with Front here, and say the odds are stacked heavily against these boys. Even a GS final between say, Berdych and Tsonga, would prolly be won by someone else. These lads aren't heavyweights. They're serial losers. Chumps. And yes, so were the Gonzo's and Baggy's of Federer era. Safin's 2005 victory gets wheeled out as evidence of how great a challenger he was to Federer: look at their H2H. He was no challenge at all. Other than that single match, Federer basically licked his chops when he saw Safin in the road before him.

Fiero gets it correct in his assessment of these chaps warrior qualities - and it's warrior qualities that make the difference in winning slams, not talent...

 

[the AntiPusher]

I actually would side with Front here, and say the odds are stacked heavily against these boys. Even a GS final between say, Berdych and Tsonga, would prolly be won by someone else. These lads aren't heavyweights. They're serial losers. Chumps. And yes, so were the Gonzo's and Baggy's of Federer era. Safin's 2005 victory gets wheeled out as evidence of how great a challenger he was to Federer: look at their H2H. He was no challenge at all. Other than that single match, Federer basically licked his chops when he saw Safin in the road before him.

Fiero gets it correct in his assessment of these chaps warrior qualities - and it's warrior qualities that make the difference in winning slams, not talent...

Hey Mr K.. its not about siding with Front or not..its just in this game of tennis anything can happen there is no absolutes.. Yes the odds are against JowillieTs, Berdych and some of the other players to win a GS but as I listed above Stuff Happens

 

[Obsi]

Be honest, do you really think that that Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych are ever going to win a slam? If they had any chance it was years ago, not now. Most would say 100% no they won't so that's 3 on that list who qualify as weak competition right there. Tsonga's lone chance was his first and only slam final but he played nowhere near as well in the final as in the semi.

Ah, no. We have to wait for Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych to retire before we say they ended their careers slamless. Read what AntiPusher told you.

So what if the players I named are not GOAT candidates. It's not only GOAT candidates who are very good players.

What does it tell you that on your list there are no GOAT candidates and on my list there are two?

My point was they are better than the 2016 top 10.

And you have not proved your claim.

Cilic won his lone slam after a doping ban. What does that tell you?

You are so butthurt you lost control. Cilic won US Open in 2014 and he was banned because he took a illegal substance in April 2013. One and a half year difference.

As much as I'd like to see Nishikori win a slam he's not going to imo given his frail body. If he gets injured a lot in best of 3 being run ragged by the likes of Novak, what chance has he of winning 7 best of 5 matches? Again, his lone chance was against the juiced Cilic and he likely won't get another.

I believe Nishikori will win one slam by the end of his career.

Roddick ended his career with a 5-4 h2h over Djokovic. Guess that must hurt since he's not a GOAT candidate.

Roddick never won against peak Djokovic.

Btw Federer's competition from 2004-2007 was no different than now.

In the last 12 months Djokovic played against stronger competition than Federer in 2004.

That's just a silly old myth and sour grapes from non fans due to how many slams the guy has compared to their favourite player.

All this talk about Djokovic dominating in a weak era is sour grapes.

Novak's main competition for the past 2 years has been a 33/34 year old.

In 1967 and 1968 Rosewall was a 33/34 old but he was Laver's main rival at that time. It's considered one of the golden eras in tennis.

Go back to sleep with your weak competition nonsense.

The longer Federer and Nadal keep playing the longer this current weak era continues. Nadal is 30 in June and a mere shadow of his former self. Federer while still very good is almost 35. Again, feel free to keep harping on about weak competition in Federer's heyday next year when Federer is 36 and Nadal 31 and I'll continue to laugh my bollocks off.

It's foolish to say that I talk nonsense because I think Federer dominated in weak era. Deep down you believe it's true so it must be painful.

For the record, Obsi I like Djokovic but you're giving Djokovic fans a bad name with this nonsense trolling of downplaying Federer's achievements and saying his most dominant period (2004-2007) and the most dominant stretch in men's tennis to date was because of weak competition.

You're giving yourself a bad name by saying it's OBVIOUS that Top 10 in 2004 were stronger than the current Top 10.

You need to wake up and realize players age and the same thing is happening now. Federer is old, very old for a professional tennis player and yet at almost 35 he's still Djokovic's main competition but of course it can't be that this is a weak era. No, of course not. I mean, the fact that Nadal and Murray can't beat Djokovic anymore must surely mean this is an ultra competitive era. Or wait...Nadal is well past it and Murray is just plain not good enough to beat Novak either so you're left with who exactly who can challenge Novak? Stan in about 2 matches in 4 years? Federer in best of 3? Seriously, give things a bit more of a logical consideration before declaring Djokovic the second coming of Jesus and proclaiming him superior to everyone on tour when in fact, his 3 main competitors of the last few years are nothing like they once were. And that includes Murray who occasionally used to actually be able to beat him. And the rest are not slam contenders and you know it.

Who were Federer's rivals in 2004-2007? Nadal didn't reach his prime on hard courts until 2008 and most tournaments are played on hard courts. Djokovic had health problems until 2010 due to gluten intolerance. Murray reached his prime in 2008...etc.

 

[mrzz]

I for one think the weak era argument is poor regarding to any era. If a player wins 12 slams in a row, people will always say he faced weak competition, no matter how good the competition actually were.

The best you can do is see the matches and say your opinion. I agree partially with Front that, in the last 12 months, the only matches worth of the word "greatness" from Djokovic were precisely against Federer. Most of the rest did not impress me, not because were against Berdych or Ferrer, but because there were nothing special in themselves.

I am pretty sure you can say the same about a lot of matches from Federer back then. But (just to keep pounding against the weak era argument) look at the match against Gonzalez. You can say what the hell you want, but the guy just pounded the ball, and Federer pounded back. One of the best (at least hardests) forehands of ATP was having the week of his life, and Federer just locked horns with it. Again, you can say what you want about Gonzalez, that was a great effort from Federer to beat him there.

As it would have been a great effort by Djokovic had him beat Wawrinka in last year's RG final. You cannot judge the quality just by reading the name of the opponent.

So, I agree that late 2015 and begining of 2016 does not seem like a bad time to be #1, and I agree with Front hands down than any top 10 from 2004-2007 were harder to beat than these ones, in this specific period. On the other hand, apart from a year and a half spell, Djokovic has been dominant since 2011, and in this long interval he did faced heavy competition too. He can only play the guys who are across the net, and he dismantled them convincingly. But, if you look at the numbers everyone brought up, it is obvious that we are splitting hairs.

So, to finally sum things up, what I don't like about the weak era debate (apart from the points above) is that it can only be used to play down other player's achievements. So, rather trying to compare the great players from what they did best, people keep fighting trying to prove that his favourite adversary is a moron, or a fake. If, by some strange reason, both parties succeed in proving his points, we we'll all look like a bunch of stupid people, cheering for small champions on silly sport.

 

[Kieran]

I agree partially with Front that, in the last 12 years, the only matches worth of the word "greatness" from Djokovic were precisely against Federer. Most of the rest did not impress me, not because were against Berdych or Ferrer, but because there were nothing special in themselves.

Whatever about the rest of it, I'm sure you'll agree that Novak's victories against Rafa in 2011-2012 were of a fairly titanic nature, and there's nothing in Federer's resume compares with that. Novak did have to get through Fedal to start with, whereas Wodger had to get through...um...and...uh...and...

Exactly!

 

[mrzz]

I agree partially with Front that, in the last 12 years, the only matches worth of the word "greatness" from Djokovic were precisely against Federer. Most of the rest did not impress me, not because were against Berdych or Ferrer, but because there were nothing special in themselves.

Whatever about the rest of it, I'm sure you'll agree that Novak's victories against Rafa in 2011-2012 were of a fairly titanic nature, and there's nothing in Federer's resume compares with that. Novak did have to get through Fedal to start with, whereas Wodger had to get through...um...and...uh...and...

Exactly!

Ops, bad mistake by me. I meant 12 months (and edited the post). And, yes, of course I agree about the 2011-12 victories against Nadal.

 

[Riotbeard]

I for one think the weak era argument is poor regarding to any era. If a player wins 12 slams in a row, people will always say he faced weak competition, no matter how good the competition actually were.

The best you can do is see the matches and say your opinion. I agree partially with Front that, in the last 12 months, the only matches worth of the word "greatness" from Djokovic were precisely against Federer. Most of the rest did not impress me, not because were against Berdych or Ferrer, but because there were nothing special in themselves.

I am pretty sure you can say the same about a lot of matches from Federer back then. But (just to keep pounding against the weak era argument) look at the match against Gonzalez. You can say what the hell you want, but the guy just pounded the ball, and Federer pounded back. One of the best (at least hardests) forehands of ATP was having the week of his life, and Federer just locked horns with it. Again, you can say what you want about Gonzalez, that was a great effort from Federer to beat him there.

As it would have been a great effort by Djokovic had him beat Wawrinka in last year's RG final. You cannot judge the quality just by reading the name of the opponent.

So, I agree that late 2015 and begining of 2016 does not seem like a bad time to be #1, and I agree with Front hands down than any top 10 from 2004-2007 were harder to beat than these ones, in this specific period. On the other hand, apart from a year and a half spell, Djokovic has been dominant since 2011, and in this long interval he did faced heavy competition too. He can only play the guys who are across the net, and he dismantled them convincingly. But, if you look at the numbers everyone brought up, it is obvious that we are splitting hairs.

So, to finally sum things up, what I don't like about the weak era debate (apart from the points above) is that it can only be used to play down other player's achievements. So, rather trying to compare the great players from what they did best, people keep fighting trying to prove that his favourite adversary is a moron, or a fake. If, by some strange reason, both parties succeed in proving his points, we we'll all look like a bunch of stupid people, cheering for small champions on silly sport.

Drops mic. Great post mrzz. This is why I find a lot of these debates uninteresting. While I agree that Novak is making a bit of hay while the sun shines, he also had to get a lot of his slams against incredible competition! That is why I think 2011 is a better season than 2015. The people he had to beat to get 3 slams and 5 masters is simply more impressive, then 3 slams, 6 masters, and the WTF against good, but declining competition.

The only thing I would say to both weak era arguments is that both guys still had to do it day in and day out. It's not easy to be that consistent, even against non-GOATs or declined GOATs. Moreover, once someone dominates the tour, their competition will inevitably look weak.

 

[Front242]

Be honest, do you really think that that Ferrer, Tsonga or Berdych are ever going to win a slam? If they had any chance it was years ago, not now. Most would say 100% no they won't so that's 3 on that list who qualify as weak competition right there. Tsonga's lone chance was his first and only slam final but he played nowhere near as well in the final as in the semi.

Ah, no. We have to wait for Ferrer, Tsonga and Berdych to retire before we say they ended their careers slamless. Read what AntiPusher told you.

So what if the players I named are not GOAT candidates. It's not only GOAT candidates who are very good players.

What does it tell you that on your list there are no GOAT candidates and on my list there are two?

It tells absolutely nothing, that's what. It doesn't matter when said player's (Nadal) current level has been crapola for around 2.5 years and counting. We live in the now, not the past.

My point was they are better than the 2016 top 10.

And you have not proved your claim.

Cilic won his lone slam after a doping ban. What does that tell you?

You are so butthurt you lost control. Cilic won US Open in 2014 and he was banned because he took a illegal substance in April 2013. One and a half year difference.

Why should I be butthurt? I simply don't like dopers and you need to do more research on doping to see that dopers remain much of the gains from doping for a long long time. Check out Justin Gatlin for starters.

As much as I'd like to see Nishikori win a slam he's not going to imo given his frail body. If he gets injured a lot in best of 3 being run ragged by the likes of Novak, what chance has he of winning 7 best of 5 matches? Again, his lone chance was against the juiced Cilic and he likely won't get another.

I believe Nishikori will win one slam by the end of his career.

Fair enough, maybe he will, maybe he won't. Either way he's not fit enough to make this 2016 top 10 any better than the one from 2004 as he's injured so often he's largely irrelevant.

Roddick ended his career with a 5-4 h2h over Djokovic. Guess that must hurt since he's not a GOAT candidate.

Roddick never won against peak Djokovic.

This post just reinforces your ignorance towards AGE. Roddick's peak was way earlier and he had more wins against Novak when he was closer to his peak. The reverse happened as Roddick aged, declined and his once deadly serve and forehand were nothing like they were before. You clearly have issues with this very basic fact of life. People get older, then they're not as fast or good at professional sports. Duh. You could just as easily say peak Roddick always beat Djokovic.

Btw Federer's competition from 2004-2007 was no different than now.

In the last 12 months Djokovic played against stronger competition than Federer in 2004.

That's just a silly old myth and sour grapes from non fans due to how many slams the guy has compared to their favourite player.

All this talk about Djokovic dominating in a weak era is sour grapes.

Novak's main competition for the past 2 years has been a 33/34 year old.

In 1967 and 1968 Rosewall was a 33/34 old but he was Laver's main rival at that time. It's considered one of the golden eras in tennis.

They played with wooden racquets and didn't have CVAC machines so it's hardly surprising.

Go back to sleep with your weak competition nonsense.

The longer Federer and Nadal keep playing the longer this current weak era continues. Nadal is 30 in June and a mere shadow of his former self. Federer while still very good is almost 35. Again, feel free to keep harping on about weak competition in Federer's heyday next year when Federer is 36 and Nadal 31 and I'll continue to laugh my bollocks off.

It's foolish to say that I talk nonsense because I think Federer dominated in weak era. Deep down you believe it's true so it must be painful.

Deep down I don't believe it's true and have already proven above how it's not any different than Djokovic beating a 33/34 year old, a poor shell of his former self Nadal and totally inconsistent and basically not good enough Murray. And the rest of them haven't a prayer of beating him. This is most definitely NOT any stronger than the field in 2004 no matter how many times you type it and things will only get worse when Federer retires as then no one will challenge Novak at all till the others improve or he gets older. You can harp on about Nadal being a GOAT candidate all you like but it's completely irrelevant as this is 2016 and it's been like this 2.5 years now. He eeked out the 2014 French Open and can't beat Novak anymore since and same with Murray so it's most definitely a weak era

For the record, Obsi I like Djokovic but you're giving Djokovic fans a bad name with this nonsense trolling of downplaying Federer's achievements and saying his most dominant period (2004-2007) and the most dominant stretch in men's tennis to date was because of weak competition.

You're giving yourself a bad name by saying it's OBVIOUS that Top 10 in 2004 were stronger than the current Top 10.

Couldn't disagree more, Agassi or Ferrer? Hard choice. Roddick or Berdych? Likewise no brainer. Safin or Tsonga? I could keep going on but, seriously, it's pointless.

You need to wake up and realize players age and the same thing is happening now. Federer is old, very old for a professional tennis player and yet at almost 35 he's still Djokovic's main competition but of course it can't be that this is a weak era. No, of course not. I mean, the fact that Nadal and Murray can't beat Djokovic anymore must surely mean this is an ultra competitive era. Or wait...Nadal is well past it and Murray is just plain not good enough to beat Novak either so you're left with who exactly who can challenge Novak? Stan in about 2 matches in 4 years? Federer in best of 3? Seriously, give things a bit more of a logical consideration before declaring Djokovic the second coming of Jesus and proclaiming him superior to everyone on tour when in fact, his 3 main competitors of the last few years are nothing like they once were. And that includes Murray who occasionally used to actually be able to beat him. And the rest are not slam contenders and you know it.

Who were Federer's rivals in 2004-2007? Nadal didn't reach his prime on hard courts until 2008 and most tournaments are played on hard courts. Djokovic had health problems until 2010 due to gluten intolerance. Murray reached his prime in 2008...etc.

Nadal won 3 French Opens in that time and as for Djokovic's health problems until 2010...that's the biggest load of horse manure I've heard in years. A professional sports player or person in general doesn't wait all that time to find out they have a gluten intolerance lol. The reason for his overnight change of fitness was clearly down to the CVAC machine and not many people buy into this gluten free bs. You're discrediting Federer's win over him so in the USO 2007 'cos Djokovic had "health problems". OHHHKAY. And of course you can't have it both ways if you decide to reply ah but Djokovic wasn't in his prime (he wasn't I'll be the first to agree) since the reverse is now the case when he beats Federer at slams. Again, it's called AGE and time you grasped this very simple concept once and for all. You mentioned it again about Murray reaching his prime in 2008. :cover

Easy to disregard the fact that Nadal and Federer are well past theirs when Djokovic is winning against them all the time isn't it? That's either very selective retention or blatant stupidity to not realize the irony.

Roddick was a beast on grass in his prime and if not for Federer would have multiple slams so there is no weak competition argument there. Gonzalez lost to Federer in the 2007 USO but you clearly forgot how good he was. Go watch him against Haas and Nadal that year. Incredible forehand. No weak competition there either. Agassi was still extremely good in 2005 also. And Nadal also posed a major challenge at Wimbledon in 2006 and 2007. Now go google age and see that people get older and worse at sports the more time goes by before we're all yet again subjected to more torture here

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

Fernando Gonzalez straight setted rafa in the qf or sf of ao2007 as well..then the weak era mug that wasted rafa got straight setted by Federer in the final. nadal was winning masters already so forget hc prime in 2008 lol.

 

[Fiero425]

We must all be desperate to be at each others' throats over this nonsense! Denying Nole's health issues, Rafa's PED use or lack thereof, and Federer supposedly taking advantage of a weak era; it's just too much and "I CAN'T!" I'll come back when something substantial actually happens and the trolls can run over each other all they want without my help! ;-/

 

[Front242]

His problem was lack of cardio which was solved by a machine that gives you double the effects of blood doping, so you don't need to put in the hours in the gym to get fit. He chose option B to get "fit" instead. But of course feel free to believe that his gluten free diet turned him into superman instead. :cover His improved form and wins over Nadal in 2011 and to present are largely helped by massively improved "cardio" and stamina.

 

[Fiero425]

His problem was lack of cardio which was solved by a machine that gives you double the effects of blood doping, so you don't need to put in the hours in the gym to get fit. He chose option B to get "fit" instead. But of course feel free to believe that his gluten free diet turned him into superman instead. :cover His improved form and wins over Nadal in 2011 and to present are largely helped by massively improved "cardio" and stamina.

...and you know all this HOW? There's all kind of video showing the working out and stretching Nole does; most complaining he does too much! So you have info/evidence that he's sitting around eating Cheetos and sloughing off all workouts huh? :cover uzzled :nono :ras: