Front242 said:
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.
You are a hypocrite. Your argument that the Top 10 in 2004 were stronger than the current Top 10 is based on the number of slams each player won in their career. What matters is the level of play of Roddick, Hewitt, Safin & co in 2004, NOT their achievements career-wise, isn't it?
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.
How long did Gatlin take prohibited substances?
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.
In 2004 the field was weaker than now so even though Nishikori is prone to injuries he would've achieved more 12 years ago.
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.
Peak Djokovic is a much better player than Peak Roddick. Every reasonable person would agree with this.
They played with wooden racquets and didn't have CVAC machines so it's hardly surprising.
Rosewall & co played serve-and-volley style which forced them to move at top speed throughout their points and they did it in both singles and doubles. At big events, every round was three-out-of-five sets, and there were no tiebreakers. It's arguable that tennis was more physically demanding than now. Also, today's players are more professional, take far better care of their body and diet so they can increase their tennis life more so than previous generations.
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
You have NOT proven Roddick's level of play in 2004 was higher than Murray's in the last 12 months. You have NOT proven Hewitt's level of play in 2004 was higher than Federer's in the last 12 months. You have NOT proven Safin's level of play in 2004 was higher than Wawrinka's in the last 12 months. You have NOT proven...
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.
Again hypocrisy. You insist names are irrelevant, what matters is the level of play but you continue to engage in the same behavior for which one you criticize.
Nadal won 3 French Opens in that time
Most tournaments are played on hard courts.
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.
Gluten intolerance is not easy to find out.
The reason for his overnight change of fitness was clearly down to the CVAC machine
Apsurd claim.
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.
When did I say Federer is now playing as good as in 2007?
You mentioned it again about Murray reaching his prime in 2008. :cover
When did Murray reach his prime?
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.
If Roddick would have won multiple slams without Federer it does NOT mean it was a strong era.
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.
You've proven nothing. I can say: go and watch Gonzales matches and you''ll see how weak he was compared to Berdych.
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
Most tennis experts say Djokovic had it tougher to win slams than Federer.
JesuslookslikeBorg said:
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.
Nadal reached his first semifinal at AO or USO in 2008. Forget hard court prime before 2008 lol.
uzzled :nono
