Dubai 2012 - Final : Federer v Murray

First topic message reminder :

Under Jahu's orders here is the thread.

Much to discuss still on the semis's other thread but when we are ready to move...It will happen here.

Federer might be tired from that semi but if he can play like today.....he has a good chance.

Was Murray trying to imply he lost to Federer because of the surface?

There really is no love lost between these two. I noticed at the trophy ceremony that neither mentioned their opponant in their speach.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:Andy says also that contrary to what Banbro and CC were saying the slow courts of IW and Miami suit him better (that fast Dubai).

Hmmm what an interesting thought then. I mean yesterday we saw a below par Murray on a surface not to his liking losing in two tight sets to a Roger Federer described as putting in an impressive display in most reports. That must be taken as a positive for Andy then.

Andy did well to get to the final. The positives from Dubai are many for Andy. He adjusted well to the court speeds, for one. IW can have temperature variations during the day and night sessions. This is a good start.

He gained some points and also made some friends with the TD/organisers after the issues with Dubai last year. IMVHO, it is upwards and onwards for Andy.

In other news..... Ferrer hammered Verdasco in Acapulco 6-1 6-2
and two giants of the tour in 6'9 isner and 6'8 anderson clashed with the latter prevailing 7-5 7-6 and faces Matosevic in today's final.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:It was amusing to read from Murray that were the conds been as fast as in Dubai and in the past, Fed would still have a few years as number one left in him.

What I said here earlier in this thread I believe.

Your point? And if courts were made slower then Nadal could be No.1 for the next few years or perhaps Djokovic. Like I said elsewhere tennis fans all over the world have preferences for different types of tennis and court speeds so why try to paint it like tennis simply must be played on quick courts? It smacks of a Federer fan yearning for conditions to suit their man unlike other tennis fans who will take what comes and get on with it. Like I said elsewhere I enjoyed the pace of Dubai though for what its worth.

We keep trying to explain to you that had the conds been the same since Fed's childhood, he woudl have developed a different game and I m 100% sure, he would still be the best, especially had he adopted teh DHBH (they all do nowadays). By changing the surfaces so dramatically, they have in effect created new sport. It's like having 100m racers having suddenly to compete on the 800m.

If you call this sport, I don't. You are just happy with the change cause it suits your boy but as BB mentioned many times, others see beyond their idols.

Oh so your craving for quick courts are nothing to do with the fact you are a Federer fan who tries ramming him down everybody's throat. Ah right I see if you say so. By the way I have said I enjoyed Dubai so it kind of blows your theory out of the water.

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:Andy says also that contrary to what Banbro and CC were saying the slow courts of IW and Miami suit him better (that fast Dubai).

Hmmm what an interesting thought then. I mean yesterday we saw a below par Murray on a surface not to his liking losing in two tight sets to a Roger Federer described as putting in an impressive display in most reports. That must be taken as a positive for Andy then.

CC...what do yuo know about below par? Do you really think keeping a fast ball in those courts is as easy as on a slow court? Murray says it himself...Federer on fast is proably number one. Those atypical UEs were not really bothering when they came from Djokovic? Maybe you did notice that Djoko was below par as well? I don't think I read it from you.

YOu are a real fan that only sees from his idol's perspective ad imagines his heros doing everyting perfectly without actually understanding how teh pace of teh court and the opponent actually forced Murray in more errors.

Oh here it comes the personal stuff again.

Tenez, look at the match stats before opening fire. Andy's serve stats FOR THE TOURNAMENT in Dubai going into the final was somewhere over 70% going into the final. The final he served at 48% so that wasn't up to his earlier standard, backhand was poorer than usual and more unfiorced errors than is normally expected from Andy so there we have it. The stats tell the story as well. Go figure.

Caledonian Craig

As I said pages and pages ago on this page Federer served at only 44% in the second set and 50% for the whole match. Those figures are unusually poor for Federer. On a fast hard court Federer was beatable yesterday with those figures.

Overall his first serve was better than Andy's (only marginally but better all the same). If we are to believe reports then Federer played well:-

BBC report says it was an impressive display from Federer whilst Murray wasn't at the same level as the semi.

The ATP report quotes Federer as saying he played a great game and goes on later to say 'Murray struggled to find the form that saw him beat Djokovic the day before.

I am sure other reports across the globe will say pretty much the same.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Your point? And if courts were made slower then Nadal could be No.1 for the next few years or perhaps Djokovic. Like I said elsewhere tennis fans all over the world have preferences for different types of tennis and court speeds so why try to paint it like tennis simply must be played on quick courts? It smacks of a Federer fan yearning for conditions to suit their man unlike other tennis fans who will take what comes and get on with it. Like I said elsewhere I enjoyed the pace of Dubai though for what its worth.

We keep trying to explain to you that had the conds been the same since Fed's childhood, he woudl have developed a different game and I m 100% sure, he would still be the best, especially had he adopted teh DHBH (they all do nowadays)...
If you call this sport, I don't. You are just happy with the change cause it suits your boy but as BB mentioned many times, others see beyond their idols.

The irony.

Tenez wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:

Tenez wrote:It was amusing to read from Murray that were the conds been as fast as in Dubai and in the past, Fed would still have a few years as number one left in him.

What I said here earlier in this thread I believe.

Your point? And if courts were made slower then Nadal could be No.1 for the next few years or perhaps Djokovic. Like I said elsewhere tennis fans all over the world have preferences for different types of tennis and court speeds so why try to paint it like tennis simply must be played on quick courts? It smacks of a Federer fan yearning for conditions to suit their man unlike other tennis fans who will take what comes and get on with it. Like I said elsewhere I enjoyed the pace of Dubai though for what its worth.

We keep trying to explain to you that had the conds been the same since Fed's childhood, he woudl have developed a different game and I m 100% sure, he would still be the best, especially had he adopted teh DHBH (they all do nowadays). By changing the surfaces so dramatically, they have in effect created new sport. It's like having 100m racers having suddenly to compete on the 800m.

If you call this sport, I don't. You are just happy with the change cause it suits your boy but as BB mentioned many times, others see beyond their idols.

Im not so sure Criag will be so happy when the full realisation of the long term damage that slowing down the surfaces will not just have on the game but the athletes too hits home
You look at an up an coming talent like Tomic,a really exciting promising prospect for the game,you gotta wonder how quickly he will burn out.Wining majors is like running a marathon and slowing the surfaces down is like adding distance to the marathon
This also makes the players more prone to injury.Maybe Craig forgot how injured and burnt out Murray was at the end of last season,he could end up having the surfaces slowed down to his hearts content but end up having no one to watch or support

Sorry Tenez,I have to agree with Amiritia on this one.( never thought Id see the day) I absolutely agree with the part that if Roger was born in another era,or grew up playing on the conditions of that era,it wouldn't be an issue at all.Where I disagree is that I think its just speculation to say he would still have been the best player.I understand your opinion is based on his ability,but just for the arguments sake look at Gasquet
I think the principle of Lavers comment about Roger still being a similar player without racket technology applies to different surfaces as well as he was pretty successful on all of them before the changes and still continues to achieve similar standard of consistency and even though your case is very strong if you take Roger track record into consideration,before Socal comes to claims his pound of flesh, I just want to clarify that I think remains impossible to tell,so I think its remains pure speculation

Veejay wrote:Sorry Tenez,I have to agree with Amiritia on this one.( never thought Id see the day) I absolutely agree with the part that if Roger was born in another era,or grew up playing on the conditions of that era,it wouldn't be an issue at all.Where I disagree is that I think its just speculation to say he would still have been the best player.I understand your opinion is based on his ability,but just for the arguments sake look at Gasquet
I think the principle of Lavers comment about Roger still being a similar player without racket technology applies to different surfaces as well as he was pretty successful on all of them before the changes and still continues to achieve similar standard of consistency and even though your case is very strong if you take Roger track record into consideration,before Socal comes to claims his pound of flesh, I just want to clarify that I think remains impossible to tell,so I think its remains pure speculation

It is indeed speculation but so is speculation to say that Federer woudl have a better record has teh surfaces remained as fast as in the past.

Forum are there to speculate and in my view, teach a young Federer to play DHBH on those slow courts and he is unstoppable....even if he'd lose some of his creativity.

Tenez wrote:

Veejay wrote:Sorry Tenez,I have to agree with Amiritia on this one.( never thought Id see the day) I absolutely agree with the part that if Roger was born in another era,or grew up playing on the conditions of that era,it wouldn't be an issue at all.Where I disagree is that I think its just speculation to say he would still have been the best player.I understand your opinion is based on his ability,but just for the arguments sake look at Gasquet
I think the principle of Lavers comment about Roger still being a similar player without racket technology applies to different surfaces as well as he was pretty successful on all of them before the changes and still continues to achieve similar standard of consistency and even though your case is very strong if you take Roger track record into consideration,before Socal comes to claims his pound of flesh, I just want to clarify that I think remains impossible to tell,so I think its remains pure speculation

It is indeed speculation but so is speculation to say that Federer woudl have a better record has teh surfaces remained as fast as in the past.

Forum are there to speculate and in my view, teach a young Federer to play DHBH on those slow courts and he is unstoppable....even if he'd lose some of his creativity.

I don't believe I said Federer would have a better record if the surfaces remained as fast.I did say Roger would win 20 majors in the 90s era to make a point.But I do think theres difference between saying he would be a similar kind player,standard wise and speculating what he will achieve
Looking at the match ups what youre saying certainly makes a lot of sense,but Im not going to give Socal the satisfaction,so I will take one for the team

You should have no fear from the one who speculates that Fognini was Djoko's real demise at last year FO.

Tenez wrote:You should have no fear from the one who speculates that Fognini was Djoko's real demise at last year FO.

Nearly spat coffee all over my laptop!
I know I shouldn't be laughing cause Im almost certain he actually really believes it

Well I agree with Veejay here (I think).

If Fed was in different circumstances (eg 90s) or had learnt to play a different way (DHBH) who knows what might have happened. He could have done even better, he could have done much worse. We don't know for sure.

And I think the Social thing is probably exaggerated. I wasn't on 606v2 at the time but I refuse to believe someone as logical as Social would use the Fognini as the main reason he lost in FO last year, that's ridiculous.

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:You should have no fear from the one who speculates that Fognini was Djoko's real demise at last year FO.

Nearly spat coffee all over my laptop!
I know I shouldn't be laughing cause Im almost certain he actually really believes it

Glad you guys are having so much fun with yourselves. I like Tenez at least he is honest in his delusions. Roger only loses because he gets tired. And he only gets tired because of unfairly slowed conditions, which he happens to have won 16 slams on. Therefore Roger only loses because of unfairly slowed conditions. According to you my credibility is damaged by making the fogninni excuse for a single Novak grandslam loss, how do you think I and others view your credibility when you claim exhaustion as the reason Roger lost every single grandslam to Novak and Nadal since 2005? Tenez you are the king of copout credibility destroying excuse making. This from the guy who claims every Roger grandslam loss is due to exhaustion as a result of unfair conditions. So when he wins he isn't tired like wimbeldon 2007? But when he loses he is tired?

By the way, I will have to do a fogninni rehash thread soon to clarify my position which is nowhere as extreme as you paint it, but what can we expect. You think your credibility is in tact after you list 7 grandslam losses to Nadal and Djoko as due to exhaustion from unfairly slow conditions, some of them 4 set blowouts back in 2006?

I am glad you have such a high opinion of your own objectivity and credibility, I am certain it isn't shared by the majority of people on this site eventhough this is a highly partisan Roger site now.

Social you have made a mistake I'm afraid.
You falsely alleged that Tenez had blamed every Roger slam defeat from 2005 on tiredness. This simply isn't true.
He missed out Wimby 2010 as that was due to 'back' injury, you see.

If you make such false accusations in future I will have no option but to send a PM to YI Man.


.....
Anyway Social I wrote a thread wherer I analysed the level of competition in Feds slam matches in 2006vs2011. I ensured I was bias towards 2006, for example I said the roddick 06 final was as hard as a nadal final. Despite my bias 2011 was still convincingly harder, especially in the latter stages. I will bump the thread, perhaps you can post your viewpoint on the thread.

socal1976 wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:You should have no fear from the one who speculates that Fognini was Djoko's real demise at last year FO.

Nearly spat coffee all over my laptop!
I know I shouldn't be laughing cause Im almost certain he actually really believes it

By the way, I will have to do a fogninni rehash thread soon to clarify my position which is nowhere as extreme as you paint it, but what can we expect.

I can hardly wait. You dug yourself a hole so deep last year I thought you'd struck rock.

This will be fun.

I am really perplexed...

Player A beats player B consistently in slam finals... Player A has no competition...

Player A gets beaten by Player C in slam finals... C is great because A is great...

But player A cannot be great because his record holds no water as he had no competition...

Is that correct Amrit? BTW, you can guess player A, B and C...

Btw no offence but this is getting slightly off-topic. This was meant to be tw Dubai final match thread, if we are discussing which year/era was more competitive and harder for federer than we this thread: https://www.606v2.com/t20972p300-the-big-debate-2006vs2011

And btw spuranik, I never said federer wasn't great but we can continue this discussion on the thread which was actually created for it

socal1976 wrote:

Veejay wrote:

Tenez wrote:You should have no fear from the one who speculates that Fognini was Djoko's real demise at last year FO.

Nearly spat coffee all over my laptop!
I know I shouldn't be laughing cause Im almost certain he actually really believes it

Glad you guys are having so much fun with yourselves. I like Tenez at least he is honest in his delusions. Roger only loses because he gets tired. And he only gets tired because of unfairly slowed conditions, which he happens to have won 16 slams on. Therefore Roger only loses because of unfairly slowed conditions. According to you my credibility is damaged by making the fogninni excuse for a single Novak grandslam loss, how do you think I and others view your credibility when you claim exhaustion as the reason Roger lost every single grandslam to Novak and Nadal since 2005? Tenez you are the king of copout credibility destroying excuse making. This from the guy who claims every Roger grandslam loss is due to exhaustion as a result of unfair conditions. So when he wins he isn't tired like wimbeldon 2007? But when he loses he is tired?

By the way, I will have to do a fogninni rehash thread soon to clarify my position which is nowhere as extreme as you paint it, but what can we expect. You think your credibility is in tact after you list 7 grandslam losses to Nadal and Djoko as due to exhaustion from unfairly slow conditions, some of them 4 set blowouts back in 2006?

I am glad you have such a high opinion of your own objectivity and credibility, I am certain it isn't shared by the majority of people on this site eventhough this is a highly partisan Roger site now.

You're welcome,never a dull moment....We thought wed start the party without you
I underestimated you,Im definitely impressed, actually more surprised then impressed..fogninni? Not your average excuse,clearly a lot of thinking went into that one so brownie points for originality
Definitely looking forward to the fogninni thread,got high expectations now

You have no idea how passionate he is for Nole, or how desperate he was when Fed handed put his foot down.

look forward to the new Fognini thread, it'll be a treat.

amritia3ee wrote:Btw no offence but this is getting slightly off-topic. This was meant to be tw Dubai final match thread, if we are discussing which year/era was more competitive and harder for federer than we this thread: https://www.606v2.com/t20972p300-the-big-debate-2006vs2011

And btw spuranik, I never said federer wasn't great but we can continue this discussion on the thread which was actually created for it

Please tell me why Fed is great if he cleaned up slams with virtually no competition...

No, your inflated thread wasn't to explore the logical fail spuranik exposes, it was to perpetuate a myth.

bogbrush wrote:No, your inflated thread wasn't to explore the logical fail spuranik exposes, it was to perpetuate a myth.

Its actually pretty simple...

Nadal faced Fed in most of his RG finals... So Fed need to be labelled as Great otherwise Nadal's victories become meaningless...

Meanwhile Nadal was not reaching non-clay finals back then so Fed had no competition... And what's more, Djoko/Murray were young, Rod/Safin/Hewitt/Agassi past their best, Baggy/Sod/Gonzo inconsistent...

Great analysis...

Delray Beach starts with 5 consecutive breaks.

I'm guessing nowhere near the record, but does anyone know the most consecutive breaks of serve in an ATP match?

PS: I don't.

spuranik wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:Btw no offence but this is getting slightly off-topic. This was meant to be tw Dubai final match thread, if we are discussing which year/era was more competitive and harder for federer than we this thread: https://www.606v2.com/t20972p300-the-big-debate-2006vs2011

And btw spuranik, I never said federer wasn't great but we can continue this discussion on the thread which was actually created for it

Please tell me why Fed is great if he cleaned up slams with virtually no competition...

spuranik wrote:

Its actually pretty simple...

Nadal faced Fed in most of his RG finals... So Fed need to be labelled as Great otherwise Nadal's victories become meaningless...

Meanwhile Nadal was not reaching non-clay finals back then so Fed had no competition... And what's more, Djoko/Murray were young, Rod/Safin/Hewitt/Agassi past their best, Baggy/Sod/Gonzo inconsistent...

Great analysis...

1/ Federer is great.
2/ Nadal has improved on hard court since he was young, as he was brought up on clay. Hence he took time to acclimatise to HC fully.
3/ Yes, Murray and Djokovic were young when they were young. Certainly both better players now compared to 2006.
4/ To an extent Safin/Agassi/Hewitt were past their best by around 2006. Roddick meanwhile choked in the big occasions didn't have a great baseline game.
5/ Yes Baghdatis and Gonzalez were very inconsistent and certainly inexperience on GS finals when they faced Roger in the AO finals.

You were correct.

amritia3ee wrote:[Federer is great.

Why? What's he done that's so great - win GS against a bunch of no-hopers, has-beens and yet-to be's? When the going got tough he stopped winning. Pretty much every GS he's won has an asterisk agsinst it, given the opposition he was playing in a weak era. Fact is, he isn't great, he was just the best of a pretty useless bunch.
Name 3 out of his 16 GS that are worth anything.

Oh no, hang on, if Fed is ordinary, then Rafa had no-one to beat and Rafa isn't great either. Fed is great, no doubt about it. Absolutely, no argument.

Sorry, amritia, but that's how I see your thought processes and argument. You diminish pretty much everything Fed's achieved, but then say, Oh but he's great.

That post needs to be put on a sticky.

amritia3ee wrote:
1/ Federer is great.

And I'm asking why? See above post from JHM...

amritia3ee wrote:2/ Nadal has improved on hard court since he was young, as he was brought up on clay. Hence he took time to acclimatise to HC fully.

Wasn't he good enough to beat Fed at Miami in 05-06? But this is only valid when pointing out H2H at "Outdoor Hard" sin't it (and followed by smiley...).

Thing is, other players could beat him and Fed was good against these "inconsistents" and "no hopers"...

amritia3ee wrote:3/ Yes, Murray and Djokovic were young when they were young. Certainly both better players now compared to 2006.

My question is specifically - Was Djoko young when Fed meet him in 2007 USO final? What was his ranking and what what sort of form he was in? Remember Montreal 2007 and Dr. Sincere's prediction? You surely remember people saying "Nadal won't win a slam outside clay" so you should remember this as well...

And Murray in 2008, not 2006... BTW, one of Fed's 5 losses in 2006 was against Murray at Cincinnati...

amritia3ee wrote:4/ To an extent Safin/Agassi/Hewitt were past their best by around 2006. Roddick meanwhile choked in the big occasions didn't have a great baseline game.

Safin good enough to beat Strong era Djokovic at Wimbledon (he has a poor record at W btw)... Agassi old but reaching slam finals... Roddick good enough to reach slam final in 2009 beating strong era "Murray"...

amritia3ee wrote:5/ Yes Baghdatis and Gonzalez were very inconsistent and certainly inexperience on GS finals when they faced Roger in the AO finals.

Experienced enough to reach slam final beating top ten players but just bad against Roger...

Yes, You are correct.

bogbrush wrote:You have no idea how passionate he is for Nole, or how desperate he was when Fed handed put his foot down.

look forward to the new Fognini thread, it'll be a treat.

That was a huge blow for the weak era theorists,how weak era Roger was the one who ended Djokovics winning streak,the players from the stronger era had several failed attempts yet the old man from the weak era was the one who made Djokovic look completely one diminutional in that match
This is why I sympathise with Socals fogninni excuse,Djokovic had the easiest possible route to the finals since the Monday,was gifted a walk over by Fogninni and then the cup cake semi final with weak era Federer,taking all that into consideration how else would you explain such a loss and defend your weak era theory
But I think the real essence of the hostility towards Fogninni is because I think Socals believes that if Fogninni didn't withdraw Djokovic would have won a calendar slam last season

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:[Federer is great.

Why? What's he done that's so great - win GS against a bunch of no-hopers, has-beens and yet-to be's? When the going got tough he stopped winning. Pretty much every GS he's won has an asterisk agsinst it, given the opposition he was playing in a weak era. Fact is, he isn't great, he was just the best of a pretty useless bunch.
Name 3 out of his 16 GS that are worth anything.

Oh no, hang on, if Fed is ordinary, then Rafa had no-one to beat and Rafa isn't great either. Fed is great, no doubt about it. Absolutely, no argument.

Sorry, amritia, but that's how I see your thought processes and argument. You diminish pretty much everything Fed's achieved, but then say, Oh but he's great.

What are on about? Fed is a great player, no doubt.

Federers position is a lot like the klitchkos.
Everyone agrees they are great but recognises they dont have top level consistent opposition currently. A bit like fed didn't 2003-2007.

amritia3ee wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

amritia3ee wrote:[Federer is great.

Why? What's he done that's so great - win GS against a bunch of no-hopers, has-beens and yet-to be's? When the going got tough he stopped winning. Pretty much every GS he's won has an asterisk agsinst it, given the opposition he was playing in a weak era. Fact is, he isn't great, he was just the best of a pretty useless bunch.
Name 3 out of his 16 GS that are worth anything.

Oh no, hang on, if Fed is ordinary, then Rafa had no-one to beat and Rafa isn't great either. Fed is great, no doubt about it. Absolutely, no argument.

Sorry, amritia, but that's how I see your thought processes and argument. You diminish pretty much everything Fed's achieved, but then say, Oh but he's great.

What are on about? Fed is a great player, no doubt.

lol... desperate is the word that comes to mind...

He is asking the reason why?? We all actually have doubts for reasons he stated in the 1st paragraph...

The more I observe it the more alike the klitschkos position now and federer position earlier seem alike. This is a quote from the boxing thread.

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is poor bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

This doesn't imply kilt brothers aren't great does it.

What Julius said in some respects were partly true. But then he completely over-exaggerated it.

amritia3ee wrote:
The more I observe it the more alike the klitschkos position now and federer position earlier seem alike. This is a quote from the boxing thread.

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is poor bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

This doesn't imply kilt brothers aren't great does it.

Regarding the point in bold.
There are exciting fights out there, but the Klit's manager deliberately avoids decent fighters, or has fights in Germany where they will deffo win on points.

amritia3ee wrote:
The more I observe it the more alike the klitschkos position now and federer position earlier seem alike. This is a quote from the boxing thread.

compelling and rich wrote:I dont agree, the problem with the heavyweights at the minute is the standard is poor bar the klitschko brothers. If the k brothers were american the division would still be the same. There just isnt any challenging exicting fights out there.

This doesn't imply kilt brothers aren't great does it.

Forget Klitschko or Federer... Just tell me, if somebody is winning a lot of matches with no "real" competition around (that's your claim BTW), then why should they be called great?

Sorry, amritia, but you haven't addressed any of the points I raised. You're basically saying "Fed is great because he is", despite the fact that you clearly don't think he's actually achieved a great deal and have argued that case vociferously.
I haven't over-exaggerated it - that's exactly how your argument comes across.

amritia3ee wrote:What Julius said in some respects were partly true. But then he completely over-exaggerated it.

Would you care to elaborate? Which point were "true in some respects" and which points did he exaggerated?

BTW, what is over-exaggeration??

Well yes Y I Man, the Klit brothers are winning even now.
But federer has a 8-2 slam H2H defecit against his main rival, unlike any of the Klit brothers. When fed comes up against tougher opposition he naturely finds life tougher, it's logic.

Well what can I refute Julius?
Agassi was too old. Roddick didn't have great rallying skills and choked in the bigger moments. Players like Gonzalez ad Baghdatis were very inconsistent. Ljubicic reached number 3 after only reaching 1 Grand slam semi where the highest ranked player he beat was the world number 79. This is all true. And yes fed did struggle against his main rival in grand slams.

But he beat the competition, whether it was weak or not is irrelevant, for so long and so consistently, and so easily that this itself makes him great. No doubt.

Are the klitchko brothers great? Yes.
Is their level of competition great? No.
Simple as that.
The only difference is the klitchkoes have never met their nadal. Lewis won due to a lucky cut.
Baghdatis+Gonzalez= Jean Marc mormeck.

Well, that doesn't seem logical to me. Beating a bunch of average players doesn't make someone great. It makes them slightly better than average. What you say is irrelevant is, from a logic perspective, very relevant. You're arguing one thing, but concluding something else.

Simple_Analyst used exactly the same arguments and concluded "that's why Fed isn't great". I disagreed with the arguments, but at least he reached a logical conclusion based on his beliefs.

Well Baghdatis and Gonzalez are better than average themselves. Roddick has won a Grand Slam, that's not average. But it doesn't make them great either.
You can't understand something. The longevity of how fed could so constantly beat these players, who werent sensational but not terrible either, makes him great.
See the klitchko example. They are accepted as greats.

So what do you think Julius?
Were Murray and djikovic old when they were teenager. Were Baghdatis and Gonzalez really greats of the game? Where would roddick be without his serve? Was Agassi young in 2005/2006?
Answer these questions.

amritia3ee wrote:So what do you think Julius?
Were Murray and djikovic old when they were teenager. Were Baghdatis and Gonzalez really greats of the game? Where would roddick be without his serve? Was Agassi young in 2005/2006?
Answer these questions.

For one last time, what was Djokovic's rank at USO 2007? What form he was in? Did he won the built-up tournament to USO at Montreal or not?

Same with Murray at USO 2008...