Stronger, weaker or ?

[Federberg]

Your logic is wrong, put simply.

Lol!

 

[Ricardo]

Lol!

See, admitting (your lack of ....) isn't so hard huh?

 

[Federberg]

See, admitting (your lack of ....) isn't so hard huh?

I would hope you're smarter than that. I just found it amusing that you would write that. It gave me a little bit more insight about your personality

 

[Ricardo]

I would hope you're smarter than that. I just found it amusing that you would write that. It gave me a little bit more insight about your personality

Were you weeping when you wrote this? ouch.....:spank:i mean i just spanked you that hard?

that's the weakest comeback i've had for a while, out of all the 'guys' i've spanked recently so that gave away about your personality

oh but that doesn't detract from the fact that Federer didn't dominate on clay, Nadal did..... he owned Fed. Same as in 2011, Djoker was the dominant player and he owned Nadal. By your definition, Rafa dominated in 2011.... shows about your lack of *** no?

 

[Federberg]

It's not my fault that people don't really understand the word dominant. Look it up.... If you're consistently getting to finals, that's a form of dominance. I was trying to avoid controversy, but I do enjoy your puerile outbursts. I figured I would let you make a tit of yourself before responding. Well done kid

 

[Ricardo]

It's not my fault that people don't really understand the word dominant. Look it up.... If you're consistently getting to finals, that's a form of dominance. I was trying to avoid controversy, but I do enjoy your puerile outbursts. I figured I would let you make a tit of yourself before responding. Well done kid

Keep arguing nonsense, ok simple question.... did Nadal dominate 2011 or not?

run Federburg run!

 

[Federberg]

Seriously mate. I'm starting to feel sorry for you now. Go get a dictionary, look up the precise meaning of dominant. Feel free to delete your posts, I'll pretend this never happened. Btw.. not sure about the reference to a specific year, my point was about Roger in his peak on clay. Anyway.. this is getting a bit boring now, and I find myself pitying you

 

[Ricardo]

Seriously mate. I'm starting to feel sorry for you now. Go get a dictionary, look up the precise meaning of dominant. Feel free to delete your posts, I'll pretend this never happened. Btw.. not sure about the reference to a specific year, my point was about Roger in his peak on clay. Anyway.. this is getting a bit boring now, and I find myself pitying you

I don't need a dictionary to know it, but you obviously couldn't handle a very simple question...... did Nadal dominate 2011?

Pitying me? you are crying mate, and saying that doesn't hide it.

 

[Ricardo]

no answer? thought so.

 

[Federberg]

I don't need a dictionary to know it, but you obviously couldn't handle a very simple question...... did Nadal dominate 2011?

Pitying me? you are crying mate, and saying that doesn't hide it.

Lol! Generally kiddo, you're so trivial to me I don't pay that much attention. I made a specific comment. Didn't feel it necessary to either support or argue against your agenda. I still don't.

For what it's worth your comparison is flawed anyway. My point remains, a player can dominate most of the field and still not win titles. Back in your box now

 

[mrzz]

I seem to remember that that was an interesting thread.

 

[Moxie]

Roger was dominant against the rest of the field. There were years where we could pretty much bank it that he would get to the finals. The fact that Nadal was beating him there doesn't take away from that.

Mrzz. suggested we come back to the original conversation. Surely Roger was dominating the field for a long time, but so was Rafa, and Rafa wasn't just beating Roger on clay. I don't see why Roger should get a free pass on Nadal...it does take away from Roger's dominance. And Roger was dominating over an era that, prior to Nadal, really wasn't that hard on him. Look who he lost to '03-'07:

2003: Henman, Ljubicic, Ferrero, Hewitt, Nalbandian (x2), Roddick, Jiri Novak, Luis Horna
2004: Henman, Nadal, Costa, Kuerten, Hrabty, Berdych
2005: Nalbandian, Nadal, Gasquet, Safin
2006: Murray, Nadal (x4)
2007: Gonzalez, Nalbandian (x2), Djokovic, Nadal (x2), Volandri, Cañas (x2)

I bolded the names of the guys that were from the next era down. Notice how many of them got into his game early. Of his generation, Nalbandian gave him a hard time, but we know what an underachiever he was. Henman? Hewitt, Roddick and Safin should have been better competition than they were. And you can't just say, "Well, he was just better than they were," because the guys that were coming up to join the 'Golden Era' started beating him as teenagers, or nearly. They were really forming a stronger era, and starting early.

 

[Federberg]

Mr. suggested we come back to the original conversation. Surely Roger was dominating the field for a long time, but so was Rafa, and Rafa wasn't just beating Roger on clay. I don't see why Roger should get a free pass on Nadal...it does take away from Roger's dominance. And Roger was dominating over an era that, prior to Nadal, really wasn't that hard on him. Look who he lost to '03-'07:

2003: Henman, Ljubicic, Ferrero, Hewitt, Nalbandian (x2), Roddick, Jiri Novak, Luis Horna
2004: Henman, Nadal, Costa, Kuerten, Hrabty, Berdych
2005: Nalbandian, Nadal, Gasquet, Safin
2006: Murray, Nadal (x4)
2007: Gonzalez, Nalbandian (x2), Djokovic, Nadal (x2), Volandri, Cañas (x2)

I bolded the names of the guys that were from the next era down. Notice how many of them got into his game early. Of his generation, Nalbandian gave him a hard time, but we know what an underachiever he was. Henman? Hewitt, Roddick and Safin should have been better competition than they were. And you can't just say, "Well, he was just better than they were," because the guys that were coming up to join the 'Golden Era' started beating him as teenagers, or nearly. They were really forming a stronger era, and starting early.

Happy to! I think that I was quite clear that I thought most of those guys would get eaten alive in this era. I however also question how successful some of the current guys would be in an era of greater surface variability. I think you know by now that I'm not super interested in cross era comparisons, it's a little woulda coulda for me. I wasn't particularly keen to get into specific discussions about the eras mentioned, my primary point was that surface uniformity has aided dominance in this era

 

[Moxie]

Happy to! I think that I was quite clear that I thought most of those guys would get eaten alive in this era. I however also question how successful some of the current guys would be in an era of greater surface variability. I think you know by now that I'm not super interested in cross era comparisons, it's a little woulda coulda for me. I wasn't particularly keen to get into specific discussions about the eras mentioned, my primary point was that surface uniformity has aided dominance in this era

I was going to come back to Djokovic on the other side of a weak period in a bit, with the aging of the Golden Era guys, and the failures of the Lost Generation, but when would you say the surface uniformity dates to? Surely it can't be to one year. It has to have been a process. It's not just one thing, either, and I think we're mostly talking about the Majors, right? They've slowed the grass at Wimbledon, and also to give it a truer bounce, was my understanding. But Halle is still fast, I thought. And Newport, too, I think. Clay is clay, unless it's Madrid, I guess. Then there are slower HCs, faster HCs and indoor HCs. But no more carpet, which was very fast. And of course climate affects all of the outdoor tournaments. But when would you say this "uniformity" became a real factor, and who would you say it has aided or not? Or how has it been detrimental to tennis, as so many seem to complain about it?

 

[Federberg]

^i think it's been a process. It's the confluence of slower surfaces, racquet technology and even the balls. Hard to pin down precisely when the tipping point was but sometime in the early 2000s.

As you know I'm a Fed fan but even he has benefited. I'm not kidding myself. I'm not convinced that the sort of playing conditions in earlier eras would lend itself to the sort of dominance we've seen in recent years

 

[Ricardo]

Lol! Generally kiddo, you're so trivial to me I don't pay that much attention. I made a specific comment. Didn't feel it necessary to either support or argue against your agenda. I still don't.

For what it's worth your comparison is flawed anyway. My point remains, a player can dominate most of the field and still not win titles. Back in your box now

you can't answer the question because you know it defeats your argument, which is your habit of being a loud mouth without intelligence to back you up. Or you have anything to say? why don't you show everyone what your answer is to this simple question?

Put simply you are an idiot with a loud mouth.

Dominate most of the field and still not win titles? going by this, Ferrer must have 'dominated'.... or no?

Ever wonder why people kick your butt so easily?

Because you are stupid, sorry to let you know

 

[Ricardo]

Happy to! I think that I was quite clear that I thought most of those guys would get eaten alive in this era. I however also question how successful some of the current guys would be in an era of greater surface variability. I think you know by now that I'm not super interested in cross era comparisons, it's a little woulda coulda for me. I wasn't particularly keen to get into specific discussions about the eras mentioned, my primary point was that surface uniformity has aided dominance in this era

again your opinion is simply shallow and hollow. most of those guys would get eaten alive in this era only if you transport them back to this era without taking account of the changes in racquet/string advancement, surface, ball change, etc. Geez you probably think Borg coming to this era wouldn't even make top 50. (if these factors are taken into account, then nobody can reasonably draw any conclusion because there are too many variables involved)

which however proves that i can draw the conclusion that,

you really are an idiot

 

[Moxie]

^i think it's been a process. It's the confluence of slower surfaces, racquet technology and even the balls. Hard to pin down precisely when the tipping point was but sometime in the early 2000s.

As you know I'm a Fed fan but even he has benefited. I'm not kidding myself. I'm not convinced that the sort of playing conditions in earlier eras would lend itself to the sort of dominance we've seen in recent years

I think you're right, and I do think racquet/string technology has a lot to do with it. And the proliferation of hard-courts...they only get so fast, or so slow, and they're uniform, not natural, so they are a great equalizer, whether they good for the players joints, or not. It's not surprising that the #1 now favors slow HCs.

 

[Moxie]

Here's my follow up comparison with who Novak has lost to starting 2011, the year he jumped up to a new level:

2011: Tipsarevic, Ferrer, Tsonga, Nishikori, Del Potro, Murray, Federer
2012: Querrey, Murray (x2), Federer (x2), Del Potro, Nadal (x2)
2013: Nadal (x3), Isner, Murray, Berdych, Dimitrov, Hass, DelPotro
2014: Fed (x3), Nishikori, Robredo, Tsonga, Nadal, Wawrinka
2015: Fed (x3), Murray, Wawrinka, Karlovic
2016: Murray, Jiri Vesely, Querrey

Djokovic has been dominating in the waning days of Fedal, and even still they have featured. But note how few players who are considered below his generation have beaten him (in bold.) IMO, this is the effect of the Lost Generation that isn't there to challenge him. I color-coded the other big 3, to make it clearer. Most of the players that have beaten him in the last 5 1/2 years are within a year or two of his age or older. The most accomplished are all older, except for Murray who is essentially exactly the same age. While there are good names in there, there is a preponderance of big 4, primarily Federer, with Nadal and Murray as we know, at the big moments. As Roger and Rafa have been some of his biggest problems, and given that they are on the wane, it's hard to argue that he's had an otherwise really tough field. So there is an argument that his "dominance" has benefited from a weak era, as Roger has, in his time. There was a ramping up and cooling off of a really strong field. Most were a little too young for Roger in his salad days, and a little too old to trouble Novak now.

 

[Federberg]

you can't answer the question because you know it defeats your argument, which is your habit of being a loud mouth without intelligence to back you up. Or you have anything to say? why don't you show everyone what your answer is to this simple question?

Put simply you are an idiot with a loud mouth.

Dominate most of the field and still not win titles? going by this, Ferrer must have 'dominated'.... or no?

Ever wonder why people kick your butt so easily?

Because you are stupid, sorry to let you know

I'm coming to the conclusion that you're not smart enough to realise how silly you're being. Please continue! When you grow up your nonsense will only embarrass you. I guarantee I'm not the only one reading your stuff laughing at you