Mr. Andy Murray have won just 1 maters after joining with Mr. Lendl ( Two years)

[Kieran]

Ah, the old Fedal Wars! Going back on topic, does anyone think Murray-Djoker will ever ignite and incite the same way? Not even Rafa-Djoker does! Imagine in 3 years: Dmi-Rao wars.

Eh, no! :nono

Given the reports that Murray's back surgery has been a success I fully expect him to be back in the mix next year. His matches with Djokovic are always (besides the one sided Wimbledon final) extremely tight and I'd say we'll see many more. They don't tend to be the most watchable matches however. A chore to watch most of the time.

Absolutely. Only that Murray removed his cap last year at Wimbledon, could barely tell them apart. They don't have the same fanbase as Fedal, so there isn't as much buzz and friction about their matches/achievements.

I think the contrast in style and personality within Fedal makes fans polarise and take sides. With Murray and Djoker, it's understandable that they have fewer fans: tennis only has a limited fanbase and most had committed to one side or other of Fedal before Djoker and Murray came along...

 

[Front242]

Ah, the old Fedal Wars! Going back on topic, does anyone think Murray-Djoker will ever ignite and incite the same way? Not even Rafa-Djoker does! Imagine in 3 years: Dmi-Rao wars.

Eh, no! :nono

Given the reports that Murray's back surgery has been a success I fully expect him to be back in the mix next year. His matches with Djokovic are always (besides the one sided Wimbledon final) extremely tight and I'd say we'll see many more. They don't tend to be the most watchable matches however. A chore to watch most of the time.

Absolutely. Only that Murray removed his cap last year at Wimbledon, could barely tell them apart. They don't have the same fanbase as Fedal, so there isn't as much buzz and friction about their matches/achievements.

I think the contrast in style and personality within Fedal makes fans polarise and take sides. With Murray and Djoker, it's understandable that they have fewer fans: tennis only has a limited fanbase and most had committed to one side or other of Fedal before Djoker and Murray came along...

So true. Hard to tell them apart. Thankfully Murray is playing more aggressively now. Nothing worse than watching him and Novak do nothing but defend for best of 5. To be fair they both attack much more these days.

 

[DarthFed]

He benefitted from Rafa's dodgy knees...

No one has benefited from Rafa's knees as much as he has. Imagine if he didn't have to chase every ball and throw all his body weight into those ugly strokes. You still think he'd be sitting on 13??

Yeah, I think Roger would still be sitting on 13.

Okay, I'll give him 14...

Interesting, I seem to remember Nadal missing only 2 tournaments with injuries where Roger won, and one of them was AO 2006. Some might say your comment lacks any logic :snigger

 

[DarthFed]

Can you be a bit more specific with the question as I'm not sure what it is?

Is it was Federer good on clay? or something else...

As for Pete, it doesn't have to be a choice between two extremes - a) He's horrible and stunk the place out or b) He was fantastic on clay. There's plenty of scope for a view in between. Mine is he was an average player on clay and not good enough to win Roland Garros. He wasn't terrible by any stretch and had a few good wins over decent clay court players.

I was very clear in my post but I'll come to that later. More importantly though, I don't think I can afford to post here all day just to get my point across. Yesterday, it was luxury today it's too time consuming and for nothing. Most importantly, I don't like having discussions where posters tend to make general statements rather than looking at facts and perhaps be more a bit more objective in their take but they don't. They tend to be biased and nowhere near objective. I have not seen that from any Fedal fans in any case rest assured. So I'll to make it simple and to the point.

What do you mean by Sampras had a few good wins over 'decent clay court players'? By the time Sampras encountered both Bruguera and Courier at RG in 1996, this duo already had 4 RG titles between them. Courier won in 1991 and 1992; Bruguera won in 1993 and 1994. Pete met with them only in 1996 a year later and they were all almost of same age and turned pro more or less at the same time. And Kafelnikov was about to become the Champion in 1996, so Sampras ran into essentially 3 FO winners before and after in that particular year alone.

Federer, on the other hand, in 2009 beat A. Martin, Acasuso, Paul Mathieu, Tommy Haas, Monfils, Del Potro and finally Soderling to win 2009 RG. None of these players were either past or future RG winners.

So, I'll gladly take Sampras 1996 run to semi-final at RG over Federer's run in 2009 on any given day because even when he didn't win it, it has more value and meaning to it.

Moreover, if we go deeper into Sampras performance on clay, it's worth mentioning that, Sampras had some other signficant wins over some really good players who made their mark on clay and in tennis in general.

For example, while Agassi leads Sampras 3-2 on clay, the last two victories on clay went to Sampras when Agassi was supposedly playing better tennis (1998 and 2002) according to some biased fans.

Sampras leads Corretja 2-0 on clay. Corretja beat your guy in 2000 and 2001 at RG in straight sets.

Sampras leads Muster 1-0 at RG on clay (1991). Muster then went on to win it in 1995.

Sampras is tied with Kafelnikov 2-2 on clay and while Kafelnikov had that win over Sampras at 1996 RG, Sampras won the DC tie on clay over Kafelnikov in 1995. That was a remarkable victory if anyone is kind enough to remember.

Sampras and Kuerten never met on clay.

So those are some victories on clay Sampras had against some great players on clay so he's definitely not average. He lacked consistency on clay whereas Federer was very consistent but in return, Federer almost never had to play or beat a series of prime past or future champions on clay. Only Nadal a couple of times maybe but never there where it mattered the most. And the reason why Federer was able to be this consistent on clay was because, the clay field become significantly weak after 2004. 90s might have just had the strongest clay field the tennis era ever saw. As helterskelter said, having a whole host of real challengers indicates a much deeper field than having one or two contenders at the top. That doesn't make the field in general heavy but only top heavy. Because the real danger essentially lies in the early rounds.

So you'll take a semifinal appearance at RG over a win, and beating past his prime Courier and Brugera before getting destroyed by Kafelnikov is way more impressive than winning the tournament.

Have you ever figured that the reason there doesn't appear to be many great clay courters in this era might have something to do with the fact that Nadal has won everything there. Guess what happens if Rafa is in the 90's, those clay court specialists Muster, Brugera and probably even Guga, would not be looked at as clay court specialists, they'd just be a few guys who won nothing but got to the semis and finals of some tournaments.

 

[Emma]

Hey Emma. Soderling may not have won RG at any point (hopeful he still comes back on tour) but he did make back to back consecutive finals 2009 and 2010 which is pretty damn impressive, even more so when you see who he beat to get there. Sampras best result was the semi final in 1996 at RG so Roger beating the guy who beat the best clay courter of all time is something Sampras never had to face. The levels Soderling produced against Nadal in 2009 and Fed in 2010 were insanely high. Also Del Potro and Haas were on fire at RG 2009. All in all Roger met some red hot opponents and beat them all.

If you want to hype Soderling up against the likes of Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster, Kafelnikov etc. then that's your prerogative but the fact is, he may have made the final twice but he never won it, although I truly wish he did both times. What he did instead, he opened up the door for the other to take all the glory. All the guys I've mentioned in my first sentence has 7 RGs between them. Not only that, they each have a much bigger mark in tennis history than Soderling will ever have.

 

[Kieran]

Soderling reaching the final twice only highlights how the game changed. If he could do it nowadays, who else couldn't? I wouldn't fancy Sod to reach a French Open final in the 90's.

Anyhow, he didn't play in the nineties. Players cut their cloth to fit the game. Sod did well to reach two finals and like Front, I hope he comes back fit and fighting. I always enjoyed the guy's attitude...

 

[Emma]

You may think that and everyone is entitled to their opinion but no average clay player makes 5 (yes 5!) Roland Garros finals, winning one and 2 SFs, one in 2012 years past his prime. I'd say that makes him pretty damn good on clay personally and in fact, he's the 2nd best clay courter of his generation and since 2005. He has an 80.56% winning % there and if not for one Rafael Nadal would have 5 RG titles.

It doesn't make one average losing to the best clay courter of all time, rather it highlights how good the opponent was. And again, average clay courters don't make 5 finals.

But I am not only giving my 'opinion' here. I have also given plenty facts and results. I am sure that's something to look at. And the reason why Federer was able to make consecutive finals to RG was because the rest of the clay field was rather weak or rubbish. If Sampras was given the same field one can not say that he wouldn't have won at least 1 and make consecutive runs as well. You need to live in the 90s era as well to see what it was all about. Otherwise you will be undermining heavily.

 

[Front242]

Hey Emma. Soderling may not have won RG at any point (hopeful he still comes back on tour) but he did make back to back consecutive finals 2009 and 2010 which is pretty damn impressive, even more so when you see who he beat to get there. Sampras best result was the semi final in 1996 at RG so Roger beating the guy who beat the best clay courter of all time is something Sampras never had to face. The levels Soderling produced against Nadal in 2009 and Fed in 2010 were insanely high. Also Del Potro and Haas were on fire at RG 2009. All in all Roger met some red hot opponents and beat them all.

If you want to hype Soderling up against the likes of Bruguera, Courier, Agassi, Muster, Kafelnikov etc. then that's your prerogative but the fact is, he may have made the final twice but he never won it, although I truly wish he did both times. What he did instead, he opened up the door for the other to take all the glory. All the guys I've mentioned in my first sentence has 7 RGs between them. Not only that, they each have a much bigger mark in tennis history than Soderling will ever have.

The crux of the post was Roger beat the guy who played amazing and beat Rafa so he very much earned his title. He also beat Haas who played a very high quality match till he lost the plot at 2 sets to 0 4-4 30-30 and took 5 sets to beat a red hot Del Potro in his best year on tour. All in all Roger fully earned that win the hard way. It's not his fault Soderling beat Nadal but Soderling played amazing to beat Nadal and then Roger beat him.

 

[DarthFed]

You may think that and everyone is entitled to their opinion but no average clay player makes 5 (yes 5!) Roland Garros finals, winning one and 2 SFs, one in 2012 years past his prime. I'd say that makes him pretty damn good on clay personally and in fact, he's the 2nd best clay courter of his generation and since 2005. He has an 80.56% winning % there and if not for one Rafael Nadal would have 5 RG titles.

It doesn't make one average losing to the best clay courter of all time, rather it highlights how good the opponent was. And again, average clay courters don't make 5 finals.

But I am not only giving my 'opinion' here. I have also given plenty facts and results. I am sure that's something to look at. And the reason why Federer was able to make consecutive finals to RG was because the rest of the clay field was rather weak or rubbish. If Sampras was given the same field one can not say that he wouldn't have won at least 1 and make consecutive runs as well. You need to live in the 90s era as well to see what it was all about. Otherwise you will be undermining heavily.

Nah, I think it is you who needs to get with the times and think a little deeper. There would be plenty of clay court specialists in 00's if Rafa was never around and Roger would be probably on 4 or 5 RG's and wins over guys like Ferrer, Djokovic, Almagro, etc. would look a lot better to you because those guys would have suddenly won a lot more on clay (Djokovic likely would have multiple RG's himself). Sampras was garbage on clay and I say that as a big Sampras fan. How many times did the guy lose in the first 2 rounds to Bobo the clown. He had 1 good run in 1996 but still got assaulted in the semis by Kafelnikov. You might just be a bit biased on this discussion

 

[Front242]

You may think that and everyone is entitled to their opinion but no average clay player makes 5 (yes 5!) Roland Garros finals, winning one and 2 SFs, one in 2012 years past his prime. I'd say that makes him pretty damn good on clay personally and in fact, he's the 2nd best clay courter of his generation and since 2005. He has an 80.56% winning % there and if not for one Rafael Nadal would have 5 RG titles.

It doesn't make one average losing to the best clay courter of all time, rather it highlights how good the opponent was. And again, average clay courters don't make 5 finals.

But I am not only giving my 'opinion' here. I have also given plenty facts and results. I am sure that's something to look at. And the reason why Federer was able to make consecutive finals to RG was because the rest of the clay field was rather weak or rubbish. If Sampras was given the same field one can not say that he wouldn't have won at least 1 and make consecutive runs as well. You need to live in the 90s era as well to see what it was all about. Otherwise you will be undermining heavily.

As Darth already posted, it's likely none of said 90s players would have beaten Nadal either in those finals so how does that make Roger look average by comparison? By the way you include Djokovic in that rubbish competition in all the years Roger made the final...

Also I was born in 1974 so I did watch 90s tennis

 

[Kieran]

You may think that and everyone is entitled to their opinion but no average clay player makes 5 (yes 5!) Roland Garros finals, winning one and 2 SFs, one in 2012 years past his prime. I'd say that makes him pretty damn good on clay personally and in fact, he's the 2nd best clay courter of his generation and since 2005. He has an 80.56% winning % there and if not for one Rafael Nadal would have 5 RG titles.

It doesn't make one average losing to the best clay courter of all time, rather it highlights how good the opponent was. And again, average clay courters don't make 5 finals.

But I am not only giving my 'opinion' here. I have also given plenty facts and results. I am sure that's something to look at. And the reason why Federer was able to make consecutive finals to RG was because the rest of the clay field was rather weak or rubbish. If Sampras was given the same field one can not say that he wouldn't have won at least 1 and make consecutive runs as well. You need to live in the 90s era as well to see what it was all about. Otherwise you will be undermining heavily.

Also, it isn't just a straight exchange. The game itself is different now. And the polar opposites now meet in the middle. So we don't have Goran and Pete and Krajicek and all the big hitters on grass demolishing the terrified clay men who bothered to turn up on grass, and then next season, the dirtballers sliding round the baseline while the likes of Pete and Goran - when they bothered to turn up - were bogged down in clay, playing a game that was alien to them, on a surface that was hostile.

We can't confidently or competently just move players from one era to the next and imagine what might be: they learned the game to cope best with their own era, not some future or past one...

 

[Emma]

So you'll take a semifinal appearance at RG over a win, and beating past his prime Courier and Brugera before getting destroyed by Kafelnikov is way more impressive than winning the tournament.

Have you ever figured that the reason there doesn't appear to be many great clay courters in this era might have something to do with the fact that Nadal has won everything there. Guess what happens if Rafa is in the 90's, those clay court specialists Muster, Brugera and probably even Guga, would not be looked at as clay court specialists, they'd just be a few guys who won nothing but got to the semis and finals of some tournaments.

Are you kidding me with this? Neither past their prime. They all turned pro almost at the same time and they were all almost of same age.

As to your 2nd paragraph, pure assumptions on your part. You have no idea, not a clue, if Nadal would have beaten all these players in the same fashion in the 90s as he does now. Unless you can prove it, it's not a fact. I have said that many times now - no speculations please because that undermines the past champions a great deal.

And you can look at this way that the only reason why Nadal won everything on clay because he was too good. Similarly, I see it differently and I see that the only reason why Nadal won everything in sight because he had no other true clay courter around to challenge him and so he had a very weak field to play with. Both Federer and Nadal benefited from it in fact. Because if neither was around then who do you think would have won RG on those years? We don't know. Because there's no clear 3rd or 4th or 5th favourite. It would have been a toss up between players and a nice draw would have been very helpful. But that doesn't mean Nadal isn't good. He's great on clay without a doubt but he had it easy too. Even now he has only 1 or 2 players to compete with. Others lose even just the sight of him and mentally beaten way before they even enter the court.

Anyway, I can't continue this because I don't have time for it. I will leave it to your imagination where you can be emotional and biased about your players. This is the Fedal era after all so I expect a strong emotional response from them than anything else.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^no he is not kidding you, courier in 1996 was past his prime..you are making a variant on your Federer on clay mistake..(the mistake ?, 2004prime fed means prime on all surfaces at the same time mistake)

courier and Sampras were similar ages but couriers prime didn't last too long..courier lost motivation pretty early, one of his coaches said he wasn't the same player by the mid 90s..

..unlike Sampras of course.

 

[Emma]

^^no he is not kidding you, courier in 1996 was past his prime..you are making a variant on your Federer on clay mistake..(the mistake ?, 2004prime fed means prime on all surfaces at the same time mistake)

courier and Sampras were similar ages but couriers prime didn't last too long..courier lost motivation pretty early, one of his coaches said he wasn't the same player by the mid 90s..

..unlike Sampras of course.

That is utter nonsense. The only reason Courier 'lost his motivation' because by that time Samrpas had made a very firm authority over Courier by leading 14-3 in the H2H. And that's from the get go. They both turned pro in 1988. Courier already knew deep down inside that he was dealing with a far superior player. Sampras just made him look plain and simple. He did the same to Agassi though the rivalry was better than that.

Anyway, that's my last word on it since facts are now being distorted to support their own viewpoints which are far from the truth most times.

 

[DarthFed]

So you'll take a semifinal appearance at RG over a win, and beating past his prime Courier and Brugera before getting destroyed by Kafelnikov is way more impressive than winning the tournament.

Have you ever figured that the reason there doesn't appear to be many great clay courters in this era might have something to do with the fact that Nadal has won everything there. Guess what happens if Rafa is in the 90's, those clay court specialists Muster, Brugera and probably even Guga, would not be looked at as clay court specialists, they'd just be a few guys who won nothing but got to the semis and finals of some tournaments.

Are you kidding me with this? Neither past their prime. They all turned pro almost at the same time and they were all almost of same age.

As to your 2nd paragraph, pure assumptions on your part. You have no idea, not a clue, if Nadal would have beaten all these players in the same fashion in the 90s as he does now. Unless you can prove it, it's not a fact. I have said that many times now - no speculations please because that undermines the past champions a great deal.

And you can look at this way that the only reason why Nadal won everything on clay because he was too good. Similarly, I see it differently and I see that the only reason why Nadal won everything in sight because he had no other true clay courter around to challenge him and so he had a very weak field to play with. Both Federer and Nadal benefited from it in fact. Because if neither was around then who do you think would have won RG on those years? We don't know. Because there's no clear 3rd or 4th or 5th favourite. It would have been a toss up between players and a nice draw would have been very helpful. But that doesn't mean Nadal isn't good. He's great on clay without a doubt but he had it easy too. Even now he has only 1 or 2 players to compete with. Others lose even just the sight of him and mentally beaten way before they even enter the court.

Anyway, I can't continue this because I don't have time for it. I will leave it to your imagination where you can be emotional and biased about your players. This is the Fedal era after all so I expect a strong emotional response from them than anything else.

The bolded paragraph more or less is the point I'm getting at. If Nadal and Federer weren't around you'd basically have the 90's as far as clay tennis goes with multiple "specialists" getting 1 or 2 RG's. They would then look like the awesome claycourters of the 90's you are hyping up.

And Rafa had no competition on clay? Only if you think Federer and Djokovic are garbage on clay. I think you're in the minority there.

 

[Kieran]

Darth, you don't know that for sure. Emma makes a good point. I know, everyone thinks todays greats can travel anywhere unhindered. Well, maybe if Pete played today he'd similarly fit in.

And maybe Fed might struggle in the 90's, in a totally different style of game, played against different players, in a different time. I happen to not rate Fed as highly as you, and agree with Emma...

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

^^no he is not kidding you, courier in 1996 was past his prime..you are making a variant on your Federer on clay mistake..(the mistake ?, 2004prime fed means prime on all surfaces at the same time mistake)

courier and Sampras were similar ages but couriers prime didn't last too long..courier lost motivation pretty early, one of his coaches said he wasn't the same player by the mid 90s..

..unlike Sampras of course.

That is utter nonsense. The only reason Courier 'lost his motivation' because by that time Samrpas had made a very firm authority over Courier by leading 14-3 in the H2H. And that's from the get go. They both turned pro in 1988. Courier already knew deep down inside that he was dealing with a far superior player. Sampras just made him look plain and simple. He did the same to Agassi though the rivalry was better than that.

Anyway, that's my last word on it since facts are now being distorted to support their own viewpoints which are far from the truth most times.

Its not utter nonsense..its reality, facts are not being distorted, Sampras has nothing to do with courier,

courier had early success world no1 4 majors, davis cup then his desire went downhill..it happens to some players, esp in the 70s/80s/90s when the tour was a mess and the offcourt support for players wasn't what it is now..

you will continue to look silly if all you do is drag up stats from wiki or whatever without any human or emotional input, if you are not prepared to listen to the truth and reality then that is your problem baby.

I was more of a Sampras fan actually esp at Wimbledon, I never liked courier so if anything I should be agreeing with you..

but im not because you are wrong.

 

[Kieran]

Courier actually said it himself, far as I know, that once Pete got going, he knew his time was up...

 

[Front242]

Darth, you don't know that for sure. Emma makes a good point. I know, everyone thinks todays greats can travel anywhere unhindered. Well, maybe if Pete played today he'd similarly fit in.

And maybe Fed might struggle in the 90's, in a totally different style of game, played against different players, in a different time. I happen to not rate Fed as highly as you, and agree with Emma...

Well then by that token you're making Nadal look bad too as he faced the same competition and just happened to beat the same guy multiple times in all the finals they played at RG. Agreeing with her only diminishes the achievements of Nadal. Clearly the 2nd best clay courter since 2005 was Fed as only 1 other guy won all the finals in which Fed featured and Fed has reached 5 finals, 2nd only to Nadal with 8 finals and titles there. No one else since 2005 has come close to Nadal's results there except Fed.

 

[Kieran]

I'm not diminishing anyone, it's the great players of the past who are being diminished. As I said above, players train for their own era, the game as it is, and not the game as it was - or the game as it will be...