Let's talk about 2017...

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,019
Reactions
7,143
Points
113
sid said:
Front242 said:
Kieran said:
Well, the blurb on the kerb is that Wodger's "mojo" was very close to being discovered, and that's why he wisely found an excuse to skip the Olympics.. ;)

But his recent run of exceptional good fortune against Andy only occurred because Andy was bewitched by senseless fads, and hired a skirt to boss him about. He's done with his mammy issues, and daddy is back in the box. And Federer will not be playing at his 2012 levels in 2017...

The reason Federer was beating Andy since the AO 2014 was down to his much improved attacking tennis in recent years while Edberg was with him. The "great" Murray couldn't beat Kevin Anderson 6-1 6-1 in his dreams but Federer's new tactics like SABR were what brought him back to number 2 before his injury. Federer's 2014-2015 level is good enough to still beat Murray btw, so if he can play that well it won't be easy for Murray or anyone else for that matter. Murray has been playing more aggressively at times but it still doesn't come naturally to him as his game is mostly centered on being a counterpuncher/defensive ball retrieving male version of Caroline Wozniacki, so his game is more WTA than ATP still a good 80% of the time in terms of tactics.

2014-2015 level tennis by Federer is good enough to beat anyone so he doesn't need to reach 2012 levels. I'd argue he was better in 2014-2015 anyway despite not winning a slam.

Come on Front 2014-2015 level tennis from Andy Murray was also down to his back operation.How would Roger have done after say a back operation?Andy still won 7 Singles Titles from 2014/5 after Opp.9 ATP Titles in 2016 after all Andy's had to put up with is pritty amazing Front show some respect m8.
Front doesn't roll like that, that's like asking Trump to show some humility..it ain't happening bro
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
sid said:
Front242 said:
Kieran said:
Well, the blurb on the kerb is that Wodger's "mojo" was very close to being discovered, and that's why he wisely found an excuse to skip the Olympics.. ;)

But his recent run of exceptional good fortune against Andy only occurred because Andy was bewitched by senseless fads, and hired a skirt to boss him about. He's done with his mammy issues, and daddy is back in the box. And Federer will not be playing at his 2012 levels in 2017...

The reason Federer was beating Andy since the AO 2014 was down to his much improved attacking tennis in recent years while Edberg was with him. The "great" Murray couldn't beat Kevin Anderson 6-1 6-1 in his dreams but Federer's new tactics like SABR were what brought him back to number 2 before his injury. Federer's 2014-2015 level is good enough to still beat Murray btw, so if he can play that well it won't be easy for Murray or anyone else for that matter. Murray has been playing more aggressively at times but it still doesn't come naturally to him as his game is mostly centered on being a counterpuncher/defensive ball retrieving male version of Caroline Wozniacki, so his game is more WTA than ATP still a good 80% of the time in terms of tactics.

2014-2015 level tennis by Federer is good enough to beat anyone so he doesn't need to reach 2012 levels. I'd argue he was better in 2014-2015 anyway despite not winning a slam.

Come on Front 2014-2015 level tennis from Andy Murray was also down to his back operation.How would Roger have done after say a back operation?Andy still won 7 Singles Titles from 2014/5 after Opp.9 ATP Titles in 2016 after all Andy's had to put up with is pritty amazing Front show some respect m8.

Can't have been much of an issue if he won 7 titles and it was a very minor procedure. Certainly didn't take 2 years to heal lol. Dismissing 2 years worth of losses to Roger just like that and you're expecting me to show some respect? :cover Btw, doesn't take a genius to see he won less in 2014-2015 mostly cos the competition was way stronger than 2016. No Roger most of the year and pitiful performances by Nadal and Djokovic compared to 2014-2015
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,039
Reactions
7,331
Points
113
Front242 said:
Can't have been much of an issue if he won 7 titles and it was a very minor procedure. Certainly didn't take 2 years to heal lol. Dismissing 2 years worth of losses to Roger just like that and you're expecting me to show some respect? :cover Btw, doesn't take a genius to see he won less in 2014-2015 mostly cos the competition was way stronger than 2016. No Roger most of the year and pitiful performances by Nadal and Djokovic compared to 2014-2015

Oh brother! And you were arguing so solidly up til now. Well..."solid" as in, custard compared to your usual milk :snicker . Then you went and bellyflopped onto cement with this last post, only confounding your previous manly struggle against checkmate.

Look at what you just said, and look at it closely: "Btw, doesn't take a genius to see he won less in 2014-2015 mostly cos the competition was way stronger than 2016."

And yet, he won more against both Roger and Novak between 2008 and 2013, when the competition included all Big 3 at various states of absolute peakness. And certainly these years were much stronger than 2014-2015, where we had a half-fit Rafa in 2014, and a Rafa struggling to find anything resembling form in 2015, after coming back from his late 2014 woes.

And we had a Roger who was pushing on in years, so much so that he was reaching slam finals against Novak and actually losing. And the rest of the field were on viagra, looking for results. But from 2008-2013? legends prowled the sport and did legendary things - and meanwhile Andy racked up an 11-10 H2H v Roger in these years, and he was only 12-9 behind Novak.

In 2014-2015, his H2H with Roger was 0-4 (although you wouldn't be crazy enough to believe that Roger had improved on his 2008-2013 level) and he went 2-12 against novak since 2013.

It's the blummin' woman, I tells ya - and Sid is right too! Murray wasn't the same for a long time after his back surgery. You might dismiss this as a piffling "minor procedure", compared to say Roger's back in 2013, which we always hear from you was disastrous (though fortunately it wasn't bad enough to require "a very minor procedure"), but you're not a pro tennis player, are you? :popcorn
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
^ Roger's poor record early on against Andy was more about Roger's poor play than anything else asAndy was hardly a better player then than he is now. Junk balling and all this endless golden retriever tennis p1$$e$ him off and Andy literally bored him into making errors. Not unlike how a certain Spanish player plays against him in fact. But Roger has developed his attacking skills much more last few years and that crap doesn't work anywhere near as much anymore as he wastes them with his shot making before they lull him into errors. Btw, I never said Roger's back in 2013 was disastrous even once. Sure, it was a setback but disastrous, no. And Novak was beating Andy by that margin as he was simply that much better.

Andy's recent results are not the result of him morphing into some total beast overnight, it's more a case of the competition going south. As mentioned, the obvious absence of Federer, Djokovic being crap since the French Open and Nadal barely doing anything in the slams. Andy has been consistent and that's all it took to reap the rewards of the weakened competition. He can't be knocked for that as he can only play the guys in front of them but it's obvious they're either (a) not playing or (b) playing badly.
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,039
Reactions
7,331
Points
113
Front242 said:
^ Roger's poor record early on against Andy was more about Roger's poor play than anything else asAndy was hardly a better player then than he is now. Junk balling and all this endless golden retriever tennis p1$$e$ him off and Andy literally bored him into making errors. Not unlike how a certain Spanish player plays against him in fact. But Roger has developed his attacking skills much more last few years and that crap doesn't work anywhere near as much anymore as he wastes them with his shot making before they lull him into errors. Btw, I never said Roger's back in 2013 was disastrous even once. Sure, it was a setback but disastrous, no. And Novak was beating Andy by that margin as he was simply that much better.

Andy's recent results are not the result of him morphing into some total beast overnight, it's more a case of the competition going south. As mentioned, the obvious absence of Federer, Djokovic being crap since the French Open and Nadal barely doing anything in the slams. Andy has been consistent and that's all it took to reap the rewards of the weakened competition. He can't be knocked for that as he can only play the guys in front of them but it's obvious they're either (a) not playing or (b) playing badly.

So...Andy's great results early on were because Roger was worse - and his great results now are because the field are worse - but Andy? Nah, he's just the same old same old boring Andy? :laydownlaughing

There's a knot of illogic in there, bro, when you try to show us just how better Federer was in seasons he didn't win majors, compared to when he won everything. :cover

But try as you might - and you're certainly "trying" when it comes to Andy ;) - you must someday give credit where it's due. And for the world #1, it's been long overdue, actually...
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
Don't think it's that hard to follow really. Federer lost matches he shouldn't have early in his career to players lulling him into errors with their boring rope a dope play. The older you get the less patience you have for that crap so he beats them with his serve placement and shot making now before they get the chance to try that muppetry on him. And yes Andy is still boring, on the court and off. He's been consistent all year. I already gave him credit. Consistently boring and consistently very good.
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reactions
2,576
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Roger still thinks he can hang out there playing baseline tennis with kids at times! He should definitely push the action more often because sooner or later he will wear down so much he won't be able to overcome that type of game! :rolleyes:
 

Front242

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
22,992
Reactions
3,923
Points
113
The only guys he really has to engage in long rallies with are Novak and Andy. He clearly does push the action a lot more than the others as his matches are almost always way shorter than any of Novak, Rafa or Andy. You frequently see Novak, Andy and Rafa struggling early in slams with long matches against nobodies while Roger is off the court in 1.5 hours.
 

Shivashish Sarkar

Major Winner
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,407
Reactions
197
Points
63
Location
Bengaluru, India.
This generation saw some anomalies. A guy who has 17 slams, a GOAT claimant has a losing record against each of his 3 biggest rivals. That is as bizarre as it sounds, but it's true. However, prior to Murray's bad back in 2013 or 2014 he still had 3-1 record against Murray in slams. IMHO, any record at slams bears more weighting compared to those anywhere else simply because apparently slams are the most important tournaments in the tennis world.

Personally, to me Roger's records and wins don't mean as much as his style of play and elegance. He brings the most graceful style of tennis to the courts and it will be one of the reasons I will remain his fan forever and remember him. Perhaps, he is not as much an invincible champion as people thought he was but I have told you why I will remember him. And, during the recent times he has shown that he is also one of the biggest fighters in tennis. It should not be easy to persevere the way Roger is doing at this age. Only Agassi belongs to this class along with him. He is trying to show up for every big tournament as well as he can trying to make tweaks and do tactical changes to find a breakthrough. He isn't bogging down! He is doing these while dealing with his failing body trying to give his fans their last piece of joy. That commands respect.
 

the AntiPusher

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,019
Reactions
7,143
Points
113
shivashish said:
This generation saw some anomalies. A guy who has 17 slams, a GOAT claimant has a pe record against each of his 3 biggest rivals. That is as bizarre as it sounds, but it's true.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk

pe record ..does that means poor etc.. not to be a Federer defender but the truth is..if Roger would have left the tour at age 31, he would have had a fantastic h2h vs Andy and and extremely good vs Novak..no need to rub in the up side down. H2h vs Rafa ..do to no fault of his own...Novak has been the biggest beneficiary Roger's and Rafa's subpar play since 2014 at the grandslams..

However, Federer has been very good in non slam tournaments and his victories totals are probably out of reach for anyone in our lifetime to reach unless Novak goes on another 3 year reign, IMO
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,165
Reactions
5,853
Points
113
shivashish, nice post. First, a point of clarification. Roger has a losing record against Novak (22-23) and Rafa (11-23), but not against Murray (14-11). And of course the record against Novak is close enough to be essentially equal. Also, I don't find it particularly meaningful to separate Andy's "bad back years." The fact is that Roger is 5-1 against Andy in Slams, not 3-1.

Anyhow, I hear and agree your broader appreciation about Roger. For me it isn't as much about his record, or at least secondarily so. It is the grace, elegance, and mastery he displays on the court--and there really has never been anyone quite like him, at least in the last few decades.

We tend to forget that Roger is actually from a different era, a generation that peaked 10-15 years ago; and Roger utterly dominated his generation, from late 2003 on. No player in Open Era history so dominated his own generation as Roger did, with the possible exception of Bjorn Borg (if we separate McEnroe into the later generation). And Roger's generation was far stronger than Borg's.

As you point out, Roger's armor has tarnish, most notably (and perhaps only) his inability to figure Rafa out. But this is as much to do with a problematic match-up as it does with Rafa's greatness. Even Rafa's most ardent fans (with the possible exception of the most wacky) would never claim that the h2h is representative of their comparative greatness. It is well known that Rafa's edge in the h2h was largely due to matchup problems for Roger, and also the fact that their matches were so heavily on clay (13-2 to Rafa on clay, 10-9 everywhere else).

But Roger's overall record remains the greatest in the Open Era, and certainly the greatest since Rod Laver. If we contextualize for era, Roger is one of a Quintet of GOATs that includes Laver, Rosewall, Gonzales, and Tilden. For awhile there it looked like Rafa would make it a Sextet, but it seems that ship has sailed. Novak still has a chance, but needs to change his trajectory quickly and extend his dominance. Regardless, Novak and Rafa, along with Sampras, aren't far off from the GOAT candidates.
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reactions
2,576
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Well the "Golden Age" truly was 20+ years ago and had to be the most competitive IMO of all time in OPEN history! At any given time in a major, there could be a dozen GS winners from the old McEnroe, Lendl, & Connors to newbies like Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Chang, Becker, & Courier, then future winners Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Rafter, & Ivanisovic! The current and reigning GOAT's were fortunate to have such lame competition, the new racket tech, and of course the homogenized slow courts! Neither Rafa or Nole would have won at Wimbledon before the grass was modified and made to have such consistent bounces; which is why Borg is so revered with his streak of 5 in a row against some of the best S & V's of all time! :angel: :dodgy: :p
 

El Dude

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
10,165
Reactions
5,853
Points
113
I don't know if we can say Rafa or Novak wouldn't have won at Wimbledon in the prior era. It depends upon who was playing. They probably wouldn't have been able to beat Sampras or Roger, maybe not Edberg. Actually, we can probably look to a Lendl to see how they might have fared on grass in that era. Lendl is a chronically underrated player, in my opinion. People see "only" 8 Slams, but miss the fact he played in 19 Slam finals. As I've said elsewhere, of all the Open Era greats, no player played during a harder context than Lendl. He has to face multiple generations of greats: first Connors, Borg, and Mac, then Wilander, Edberg and Becker, then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. He had a winning record against all of them except Borg (2-5), Sampras (3-5) and just barely Edberg (13-14).
 

Kieran

The GOAT
Joined
Apr 14, 2013
Messages
17,039
Reactions
7,331
Points
113
Fiero425 said:
Well the "Golden Age" truly was 20+ years ago and had to be the most competitive IMO of all time in OPEN history! At any given time in a major, there could be a dozen GS winners from the old McEnroe, Lendl, & Connors to newbies like Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Chang, Becker, & Courier, then future winners Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Rafter, & Ivanisovic! The current and reigning GOAT's were fortunate to have such lame competition, the new racket tech, and of course the homogenized slow courts! Neither Rafa or Nole would have won at Wimbledon before the grass was modified and made to have such consistent bounces; which is why Borg is so revered with his streak of 5 in a row against some of the best S & V's of all time! :angel: :dodgy: :p

Amen, brother, you missed nothing there. The game has facilitated the top players, while penalising specialists on specific surfaces, opening the opportunity for players to grab career slams routinely, and pursue double career slams just as a matter of course.

Rafa wouldn't have won fast surface wimbo, and Roger wouldn't have won on quicksand clay. They'd have had to decide - a la Pete - where they're best chances lie, and work from there. They'd still be all-time greats and great champions to compare with the best, but all these records we see now?

:nono
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reactions
2,576
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
Kieran said:
Fiero425 said:
Well the "Golden Age" truly was 20+ years ago and had to be the most competitive IMO of all time in OPEN history! At any given time in a major, there could be a dozen GS winners from the old McEnroe, Lendl, & Connors to newbies like Sampras, Agassi, Edberg, Chang, Becker, & Courier, then future winners Kafelnikov, Krajicek, Rafter, & Ivanisovic! The current and reigning GOAT's were fortunate to have such lame competition, the new racket tech, and of course the homogenized slow courts! Neither Rafa or Nole would have won at Wimbledon before the grass was modified and made to have such consistent bounces; which is why Borg is so revered with his streak of 5 in a row against some of the best S & V's of all time! :angel: :dodgy: :p

Amen, brother, you missed nothing there. The game has facilitated the top players, while penalising specialists on specific surfaces, opening the opportunity for players to grab career slams routinely, and pursue double career slams just as a matter of course.

Rafa wouldn't have won fast surface wimbo, and Roger wouldn't have won on quicksand clay. They'd have had to decide - a la Pete - where they're best chances lie, and work from there. They'd still be all-time greats and great champions to compare with the best, but all these records we see now?

:nono

One was acceptable, but then a 2nd GOAT's in training, only to be undone by a 3rd in succession! That's says a lot about them, but also the level of competition! :nono :cover :rolleyes:
 

Fiero425

The GOAT
Joined
Jul 23, 2013
Messages
11,513
Reactions
2,576
Points
113
Location
Chicago, IL
Website
fiero4251.blogspot.com
El Dude said:
I don't know if we can say Rafa or Novak wouldn't have won at Wimbledon in the prior era. It depends upon who was playing. They probably wouldn't have been able to beat Sampras or Roger, maybe not Edberg. Actually, we can probably look to a Lendl to see how they might have fared on grass in that era. Lendl is a chronically underrated player, in my opinion. People see "only" 8 Slams, but miss the fact he played in 19 Slam finals. As I've said elsewhere, of all the Open Era greats, no player played during a harder context than Lendl. He has to face multiple generations of greats: first Connors, Borg, and Mac, then Wilander, Edberg and Becker, then Sampras, Agassi, and Courier. He had a winning record against all of them except Borg (2-5), Sampras (3-5) and just barely Edberg (13-14).

Already noted that Lendl was the "Djokovic" of his generation! He had a very respectable level of play and accomplishments, but will always be looked as an "also-ran" with the likes of Borg, Connors, McEnroe, Becker, and Edberg in the mix getting more ink! Ivan was credited with changing how players trained and committed to a more beneficial diet along with Martina for the ladies! Unfortunately he'll probably be more noted for getting Murray to the next level instead of his own play and wins! Nole's done marginally better in a number of ways, so he won't be totally forgotten like Ivan; even if he doesn't do anything else! The numbers are staggering; wks @ #1, Masters wins, Nole-Slam/CGS, 12 majors, and number of YEC's! :angel: :p :clap
 

sid

Masters Champion
Joined
Jul 14, 2013
Messages
798
Reactions
10
Points
18
This thread is about 2017 not 2014 or that lol.Djokovic has to try win AO or many points could be lost.
He could run into Roger OR Potty or both.
 

Shivashish Sarkar

Major Winner
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,407
Reactions
197
Points
63
Location
Bengaluru, India.
Let's see. Is Roger in a position to cause an upset in the Oz Open? With an injury-laden body he could beat Cilic playing dazzling tennis even in the 5th set. Then, he would lose to the serve-bot but not without a decider. Given that (assuming rather) he is healthy now, he should be able to make some impact. It would be great if he could take out one of the other big 3 in the 4th round.
 

isabelle

Multiple Major Winner
Joined
Apr 17, 2013
Messages
4,673
Reactions
634
Points
113
shivashish said:
Let's see. Is Roger in a position to cause an upset in the Oz Open? With an injury-laden body he could beat Cilic playing dazzling tennis even in the 5th set. Then, he would lose to the serve-bot but not without a decider. Given that (assuming rather) he is healthy now, he should be able to make some impact. It would be great if he could take out one of the other big 3 in the 4th round.

AO'll be his "come back" tourney, I guess a player needs several weeks or months to find back top form, don't know if he's able to make some waves but AO could be much too soon, healthy or not, lack of competition could be a factor
 

Shivashish Sarkar

Major Winner
Joined
Feb 1, 2016
Messages
1,407
Reactions
197
Points
63
Location
Bengaluru, India.
He plays Hopman cup before that. What's important is he gets some rhythm and feel of his game which he will.

Sent from my Titanium Octane using Tapatalk