Pat Cash says Djoko is better than Federer!

First topic message reminder :

Well, he has done it again.

http://www.metro.co.uk/sport/879710-novak-djokovic-is-one-of-the-greatest-tennis-players-ever-says-pat-cash

"Novak has been phenomenal, winning the Australian Open, Wimbledon and the US Open and getting to the semis at Roland Garros.

‘That puts him right up there alongside the best who have ever played. I feel Djokovic is better than Federer in his prime because he has greater opposition."


Does anyone remember any other Cash's random forgetful quotes?
This has again confirmed that despite being a grand slam champion Cash hardly comes out with intelligent stuff.

You are only as good as your last season. Sports are all about what have you done for me lately. Fed has not won a slam in 2 years.

When Hewitt was the world number 1, reigning W champion and seemed to be dominating the fading Sampras, he too was praised to the sky.

Each year the pundits laud the new crop as the best ever. As TP has stated, it has always been the case.

eraldeen wrote:You are only as good as your last season. Sports are all about what have you done for me lately. Fed has not won a slam in 2 years.

You certainly have a point - and that will be the case for Rafa and Novak too some day in a few years.

Some would say that you are only as good as your last post too - oh wait a mo!

time please wrote:

eraldeen wrote:You are only as good as your last season. Sports are all about what have you done for me lately. Fed has not won a slam in 2 years.

You certainly have a point - and that will be the case for Rafa and Novak too some day in a few years.

Some would say that you are only as good as your last post too - oh wait a mo!

Actually, Nadal is already being dismissed by the pundits. Mainly because Djokovic has made Nadal look weak this year.

mthierry wrote:

time please wrote:I should add that it is ex players who are employed as commentators that have talked up this period, as they did the last - same culprits, same comments they made about Federer in 2004-07

Laver and Rosewall have on more than one occasion stated unequivocally that no-one plays tennis like TMF, In another class is the phrase I think Laver used 2 years ago.

They were talking of Federer though, not his era. They weren't exactly creaming over Roddick (despite the booming serve), Hewitt, Ljubicic, Ferrero etc. None of those challengers imo is a patch on even Murray.

At least Roddick's won sets in his GS finals not to mention winning one. Not even going to mention Hewitt.

mthierry wrote:

time please wrote:I should add that it is ex players who are employed as commentators that have talked up this period, as they did the last - same culprits, same comments they made about Federer in 2004-07

Laver and Rosewall have on more than one occasion stated unequivocally that no-one plays tennis like TMF, In another class is the phrase I think Laver used 2 years ago.

They were talking of Federer though, not his era. They weren't exactly creaming over Roddick (despite the booming serve), Hewitt, Ljubicic, Ferrero etc. None of those challengers imo is a patch on even Murray.

Hewitt is the holder of 2 slams and Ferrero and Roddick 1. They seized their moment. Cometh the hour, Murray ain't shown up - and it distresses me to say so and I hope that the fabulous victory in Tokyo will fill him with fight and confidence, but if Murray had half of Hewitt's tenacity and Roddick's heart he may well have won a slam by now. Fact! (apologies to Marcus)

I hope as much as the next person for nothing but the best for Murray, but I don't like to see entertaining and good players knocked to make a very subjective point indeed. US commentators were very excited by Roddick and did talk him up. I have no idea whether laver or Rosewall ever commented on them because it would prob have been in Oz. Roddick's game was (apart from W 2009)about as exciting to watch as all big servers like Tanner etc before him to most of the UK crowd, but it is wrong to suggest there wasn't hype about him - there are always pundits with the noble sport of tennis to promote to you and I!

TP... do not forget Safin (and his harem full of silverware and others).

timeplease,
Hewitt is a vastly inferior player to Murray and won his slams in a fortuituous period (yes, another weak era argument). I honestly can't think of a single facet of the game Hewitt excels Murray in. Murray is far more technically gifted with a lot more invention in his game and superior physical conditioning as well.

Some would argue Hewitt was mentally stronger but if Murray had to contest his slam finals against a declining Sampras and Nalbandian rather than Fed and Nole, I'd certainly fancy his chances.

I honestly wouldn't even fancy Safin (my favourite at the time) in most games against Murray except the few he decides to turn up in to have a blinder.

And there's a chasm in class between Murray and Ferrero: GS or not. I also respect all Roddick has done but I'd say Murray is a lot better with a lot more potential.

Talent wise, with the technical qualities and aptitude for the game, Murray isn't far behind an Agassi, if at all.

mthierry wrote:And there's a chasm in class between Murray and Ferrero: GS or not. I also respect all Roddick has done but I'd say Murray is a lot better with a lot more potential.

Talent wise, with the technical qualities and aptitude for the game, Murray isn't far behind an Agassi, if at all.

That may all be true, but atm there is one statistic that should prevent you from dismissing Roddick's ability and trumpeting Andy's: Wimbledon 2009 Semi final with everything to play for - slightly separated the man from the boy, and at the end of the day it is those kind of statistics that will be remembered a decade from now.

Murray may or may not have the technical aptitude of Agassi - I am not sure I agree with that, but I have never been as talented a player as some on these boards clearly are and so I don't see every perspective - but he doesn't have Agassi's fire and it takes more than just talent and work to make a champion, you need a champion's heart too. Hewitt has a champion's heart still, but the jury is out on whether Murray really has that one attribute to propel him further - his 3 slam finals have seen him thoroughly outplayed and it is difficult to know if it is because he doesn't have the 5th gear that Federer, Nadal and Djokovic have all found to carry them to the greatest prizes, or because he lacks heart.

This year, I think, will answer that question probably once and for all. In the meantime, I would just stand back and have a little more respect for players who found the heart and the fifth gear when their lungs were bursting, their legs hurting, and the doubts and longings competing with each other and still managed to come through the toughest test of all!

Good point TP,

Talent can only get you so far.

Nalbandian is probably the most talented player on tour. Amazing backhand, solid FH, creates angles and hits winners for fun. Incredible touch and deftness around the net and moves effortlessly (yes despite being slightly rotund).

When he's on form he can make anyone look silly. Yet he's only ever reached 1 slam final. To try and make out as if Andy Murray is somehow a great challenger to Federer above the competition from his peers, which included proven champions, based on 'talent' without the pedigree at the highest level, is meaningless. It is a subjective endeavour.

WRT Roddick, it is very easy to denigrate his talent now, and I agree that he doesn't have the variety and all round skills of Murray, however tennis is not a sport where the most skillful player or most complete player wins. It is not about comparing BH's and FH's shot for shot. A player may be weaker on one aspect and yet so incredibly strong in another that his strength outweighs his weakness and tilts the balance in his favour. Thus is the case with Roddick in his peak years. His incredible serve and booming FH made him a serious threat.

I do like Andy Murray, but I believe that he lacks a serious weapon, a serious punch.

If Roddick and Murray were to play against each other in their peak years on the grass courts of W, I would make Roddick the favourite without question.

I don't know how one can compare Agassi and Murray. Completely different players. Sure 2 baseliners but so are over 1500 players on the ATP.

Agassi, did not bother doing much rallying, was taking the ball extremely early and unlike Murray preferred dictating than being dictated and that against the most agressive players of all time!!!

Murray is much closer to Hewitt in comparison.

Tenez wrote:Agassi, did not bother doing much rallying, was taking the ball extremely early and unlike Murray preferred dictating than being dictated and that against the most agressive players of all time!!!

I think mthierry that Tenez's explanation is from a player's perspective and it is his points above that I, as a non player now, called Agassi's 'fire'

And I agree with emancipator re Roddick and Andy meeting at both their peaks - Murray might win several of their encounters, but that booming serve and Roddick's absolute heart would have prevailed at the biggest moments on the biggest stages, I'm sure - Roddick wanted W 2009 much, much more than Andy did which is why he wasn't afraid to win it rather than try not to lose it - why would those aspects of each player be any different a few years earlier?

SirFredPerry wrote that Roddick has suffered as a rsult of the slowing conditions; I completely agree.

I think he would have been a monster if he had had played in the nineties, assuming of course that he would have placed a greater emphasis on S&V and thus improved his, shall we say, less than perfect volleying.

time please wrote:but he doesn't have Agassi's fire and it takes more than just talent and work to make a champion, you need a champion's heart too.

Agree. To come back from the brink...

He won no top-level titles and his ranking sank to world no. 141 on November 10, 1997, prompting many to believe that his run as one of the sport's premier competitors was over and that he would never again win any significant championships.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andre_Agassi

Murray has not had to face such adversity, which is a good thing.

For me Agassi is one of the most naturally talented players of all time, and despite all he achieved he could done much more, particular earlier in his career. As we know he had some seriously tough competition throughout his career to face and was still able to Federer v.hard at the age of 35! Murray is no-one near Agassi's innate of talent, resolve or actual level of success. Both are natural hardcourters but look at Agassi's hardcourt record in comparison, its amazing. And as LF mentions the guy came back from 141 to 1 again, and did it again later on to become the games' oldest ever #1 at 33 years old.

I watched Agassi from the first time he appeared in pink lycra shorts, etc, to his retirement speech at USO06 (who can forget that) and can honestly say that some of the tennis he played at times could never be matched by Murray as it was simply breathtaking (e.g 6-0, 6-0 INDOORS on quick carpet against Mark Woodforde in 95 will live long in the memory for sheer talent on display). We forget the way Agassi hit the ball in his youth, he hit very early, very hard and very flat drawing gasps from the Wimbledon crowds when he first appeared there as they hadnt seen that level of power hitting before (indeed he hit the ball so hard that it led to his later wrist problems in 95/95/97, following which he never hit the ball as hard again which is saying something given how hard he still hit it 97-06!). I've never seen someone since really hit the ball so hard and so early like he used to 89-93, some of the returns he used to hit were staggering in their timing and pace. Agassi simply moved the game up a notch in some ways (like all the greats do when they come along) but it took him some years to harness his talent into meaningful and consistent wins. Murray has not moved the game on and wont do because others are better at everything he does. There still been a down the line BH to match Agassi's. But above the technicalities Agassi did have real fire in his stomach, an inner fury if you will to win. Sampras had it too, as do all the true greats of the game. Its what makes them stand out. You just dont feel that with Murray at the highest level and as TP says he's been roundly beaten in the 3 slam finals, and also at some key semi's or earlier too...quite often by Nadal funnily enough who he can push at 250/500/1000 but when push comes to shove in slams, the top 3 find an extra gear because they have deeper mental reserves and can stay focused under the most extreme pressure. At the end of the day results talk...and as Murray is still on 0 slams. He's almost having to rely on Nadal and Federer fading away to have a chance of winning one you feel (assuming Nole maintains his level to a degree). The problem is that Nole can clean up HC slams still and you also feed Nadal is always going to be a problem on clay until the day he can barely walk.

I've also started to doubt Murray's desire or at least his ability to focus and stay in the moment relative to the other top 3. His performance at AO final this year was terrible and he had a chance this time as he wasn't playing federer. If he was anything like the player I had him to be when I first saw him he would have won at least one of his 3 semis against nadal this year.

emancipator wrote:SirFredPerry wrote that Roddick has suffered as a rsult of the slowing conditions; I completely agree.

I think he would have been a monster if he had had played in the nineties, assuming of course that he would have placed a greater emphasis on S&V and thus improved his, shall we say, less than perfect volleying.

Agree 100%. If he'd played in the nineties people would talk about Roddick as a top, top player. His serve would basically have been unreturnable.

Good post Lydian.

I completely agree regarding Agassi. He was a phenomenon. Insanely talented.

He was a top player in an era of S&Vers when the conditions favoured such play and repeated this in an era of slower conditions favouring the baseliners.

He did all of this despite having relatively poor movement.

Murray, good as he is, is not comparable to Agassi.

Also agree with BB re: Roddick.
You'll note he had a very good record against Sampras when conditions were generally quicker (albeit at end of Pete's career).

Slower conditions are a factor but a huge one for me is that Stefanki tinkered with Roddick's game too much in the pursuit of making him a rounder player but it blunted some of his strengths - his FH in recent years is a shadow of what it used to be, and even his serve doesnt have the same potency. Sometimes its better to have weaknesses you cover with your overt strengths...to try to normalise all areas of the game is to denigrate what makes some of these guys strong to start with.

Stefanki did this with Henman too. After Henman dropped Larry in 2003, he won his first (and only) Masters event in Paris then had his best ATP year in 2004 reaching the semis of FO (even pushing Coria for a long time in the SF FO!) and USO, and QF at SW19 resulting in his best career year end ranking of #6.

Lesson: dont hire Stefanki if you want to excel!!

emancipator

Alright! I obviously overstepped comparing Murray to Agassi. Probably naive on my part cos being 21, I missed a lot of Agassi's peak years in the 90's. I was basically measuring Murray's talent against that of an Agassi in his 30's. I don't think the gulf is as big as is being made out though.

Concerning Roddick, we'll all have to agree to disagree. The Roddick that won the US Open in '03 against Ferrero was a good player but even by his own admission, the 2009 version was a better, more rounded version and I'd fancy Murray over him most times (avoiding the hyperbole of saying EVERYTIME).

Some are writing off Murray too early, he's got it all and I disagree with those that decry his lack of weapons. His serve and backhand for starters are huge weapons and he's got an outstanding tennis brain. He could be a late bloomer and the years could calm his nerves in tight moments.

Watch the highlights of agassi's australian opens against fed in 04 and 05 and compare to murray's against fed and djoko and see if you still think the same way.

2009 version of Roddick may be the better overall tennis player in terms of being able to do more things but only at the expense of what he did best in order to adapt his game to changes. This makes him less of a threat now than what he was then. If Murray played 2003 Roddick in those conditions I'm not sure I'd be picking Murray.

IMO Murray has at least as much potential as Djokovic but just having it is never enough. I think that most of the time a persons potential in any walk of life is irrelevant as there's so many factors involved to stop them realising it. Nalbandian was even more talented than Murray as he's produced a higher level of tennis at his best nevertheless he doesn't compare in achievements.

To address the article, Cash acknowledges there's a difference between fed now and in his prime as he makes the bold comparison. The US open semi that Djoko scraped through actually detracts for me from his skill relative to federer in the opposite way to how people were saying that feds 2008 wimbledon loss enhanced his legacy. Sure he won and went on to win the tournament and thats what counts so good for him but Cash is making comparisons about the players' levels and that match did not illustrate his dominance over today's federer or superior skill in the slightest.

Put another way if it was you that came through a close match with a friend that could genuinely have gone either way, you wouldn't go considering your skill superior you'd just be happy the win came your way this time.

On second thoughts maybe Pat Cash wishes he had the luck of having federer's competition that way he'd have at least 20 slams.

Good points BIT5th.

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Rafter acknowledges..., Rafter is making comparisons...

BIT5th... are you confusing Rafter and Cash? I will take Rafter over Cash, given a choice.

Yep I'm officially losing it though in my defence I'm not really old enough to have properly appreciated either of those tennis giants

break_in_the_fifth wrote:Yep I'm officially losing it though in my defence I'm not really old enough to have properly appreciated either of those tennis giants

Here is something you might appreciate. - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLelx4w228E

Sampras was quite the passing shot artist there, I was going to say Rafter did well to take the set to a tie break but he went on and won it Cash should really confer his opinions with Rafter before making them mainstream.

Pat Cash - Ivan Lendl 1987 W final - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmSRSUUZhRw

... and a lighter version of Cash-Lendl - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPIAiDXkpGg

Nice video LF...we'll not see that sort of attacking tennis again for a long long time - infact never if they dont speed the courts up. This sort of tennis is almost surgical compared to the fayre we have these days.
Watching Pete line up to serve on grass in his pomp was always quite a spectacle, to me he always looked so menacing, and again for me he's the ultimate attacking player tennis has seen to date. Funny how tennis as a whole seems to have gone technically backwards somehow when in most sports thats not the case...all due to slowing the courts down.
I mean that serve for a start was just so lethal! And to those who said he had a weak backhand watch the point at 6:35...

Here is another 'physical' rally (on a match point - 37+ strokes)...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3rGPOde5Ss

When you look at ralleys like that from 23 years ago(!) the game didnt seem that much slower! And you think that Lendl was playing over 100+ matches/year back then, with more events being best of 5 sets too.