World Tour Finals Day 2 - Nadal, Federer and Djokovic

First topic message reminder :

Tennis fans it is a marquee day today. I can't help but think what a jammy git Danny is to be able view both matches today and also CAS will be there later on when Federer and Djokovic lock horns.

Well today looks to be a bit special.

We have Nadal v Ferrer a rematch from Paris. Can the terrier sink his teeth into Nadal once again and produce another upset? Or will Nadal show up and inflict defeat number 21?

We then have for the main event Federer v Djokovic again another rematch from Paris. Can Roger at the tournament he has dominated Serbinate the Serbinator? Or will Djokovic crush the Swiss maestro.

The sad thing is I won't be able to watch either so a live commentary will be much appreciated and do feel free to discuss all things related to today's place.

Dodgy knees, dodgy backs, dodgy breathing, dodgy racquets. Anything dodgy goes. As the song goes if it is good enough for you, it's good enough for me

falzy21 wrote:The point being hateful comments rile people up....

I've never been sure why hateful comments from some anonymous internet poster, about a person one doesn't know, should rile anyone up. Although I agree that it for some people it does.
However, censoring opinion is a very fine line, one which LF and I are tasked with, while others have the luxury of simply disregarding.

Haddie-nuff wrote:You made the rules by which we are all supposed to abide... hence Socal leaving the forum.  Does it not apply to new members because if you have changed the rule book I would like a copy please

I didn't make any rules. Socal didn't leave the forum for any rule-related reason, as far as I know. See my above post re: censorship.

It's a forum full if people who don't know eachither talking about like minded interests in a friendly environment. Is it really surprising that people get annoyed when one person ruins it? It's to the forums detriment in the end cos people will just leave

JuliusHMarx wrote:

falzy21 wrote:The point being hateful comments rile people up....

I've never been sure why hateful comments from some anonymous internet poster, about a person one doesn't know, should rile anyone up. Although I agree that it for some people it does.
However, censoring opinion is a very fine line, one which LF and I are tasked with, while others have the luxury of simply disregarding.

I for one feel that this is a dangerous path to follow Julius .. I have seen you pretty defensive yourself over a certain player you favour.. however if this is how this particular thread has developed I am out of here. It will be interesting to read the comments made on the next Rafa match  thread.  Because as sure as God made those sweet little apples he has not made a single constructive comment on here today.. but there are none so blind etc etc....

I havent been riled up by anything Leo has said, actually. I only hope his playing the panto villain and play along.

What does rile me up is the fact that Im expected to allow insults directed at me to go unpunished, but I get the talking to should I ever respond.

Well look day 2 is over and people are getting annoyed. Why not lock the thread and pm people about it and make a day 3 thread

Leonard777 wrote:The best bit is, Nadal now has to save so many points next season it's going to make me keel over in a fit of laughter watching him fail.  

Ha ha! Nadal would have been better off losing all those matches.

Obviously you don't understand race points. Maybe someone would explain them to you if you asked really nicely...

Haddie-nuff wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

falzy21 wrote:The point being hateful comments rile people up....

I've never been sure why hateful comments from some anonymous internet poster, about a person one doesn't know, should rile anyone up. Although I agree that it for some people it does.
However, censoring opinion is a very fine line, one which LF and I are tasked with, while others have the luxury of simply disregarding.

I for one feel that this is a dangerous path to follow Julius .. I have seen you pretty defensive yourself over a certain player you favour.. however if this is how this particular thread has developed I am out of here. It will be interesting to read the comments made on the next Rafa match  thread.  Because as sure as God made those sweet little apples he has not made a single constructive comment on here today.. but there are none so blind etc etc....

I'm assuming the player I favour would be Connors, Henman or Agassi (or maybe Murray, but to a lesser extent).
This particular thread deviated when Henman Bill brought up the H2H (nothing wrong with that) which then brought up a discussion of the merits of H2H evaluations (nothing wrong with that).
It then developed into more of a GOAT debate. As I recall, when LF and I suggested a while back that GOAT debates should be curtailed, we were criticised. Now that we let this one run - we get criticised.

Opinions can be expressed surely? There is no absolute requirement that they be constructive comments. Or should the mods be removing comments that simply state an opinion about a player, even though others may get upset by it - personally I think not.

kingraf wrote:I havent been riled up by anything Leo has said, actually. I only hope his playing the panto villain and play along.

What does rile me up is the fact that Im expected to allow insults directed at me to go unpunished, but I get the talking to should I ever respond.

KR I have warned Leonard twice and yourself once. In what way does that leave yourself as being more punished than Leonard?

It's your call if you believe the way Leo expresses his opinions on a player hoping for his misfortune is acceptable. Then ok. But it's a similar vein to homos and you saw the damage that did

falzy21 wrote:It's your call if you believe the way Leo expresses his opinions on a player hoping for his misfortune is acceptable. Then ok.  But it's a similar vein to homos and you saw the damage that did

Remarkably similar to homos some would say, but not as forcefully expressed as of yet. Is it really that much different than when socal says "I don't care if Fed is 106 years old I love to watch him lose" and "the egomaniacal sore loser underneath was revealed".

No. But those aren't right either and people complained about those too it's up to you what you think is ok

People complained about those comments from socal? Have to admit, I missed it if they did.

How many warnings you've given Leo ostensibly irrelevant as only one of those were related to me, and it came after my warning - for calling Leo sad. You believe being sad is worse than being silly, I suppose. I don't particularly care. But I would like to see consistency. Two of Leo's first three posts were directed at me, ridiculing comments which had nothing to do with him. But I suppose it's all fine, because you gave him a warning that had nothing to do with me!

Its all well saying "attack the post not the poster" but Leo has long since set up stalls for an assault on me, seeing as you've done nothing hitherto, I've taken it upon myself to respond in kind.

A few people take issue that Socal sometimes goes a little too far. Remember ic?

Wow... some people around here can't take any criticism of their hero that seems obvious. Never seen anything like this in my life. No need to throw a hissy fit whinging at the mod for not banishing me. And I never did anything as bad as calling someone a bad human LOL

Well Leonard - this is your third warning about commenting on a poster, which can only lead to one outcome I'm afraid. Can't say you weren't given a fair chance.

Did I miss anything on my way home?

Oh for goodness sake everyone, give JHM a break.

He's a poster who has stepped up so that this forum can have a dedicated moderator. It's a task that comes with virtually no thanks and plenty of criticism. He does it free of charge to do us a favour.

If anyone is not happy with how he does it, step up yourselves, become a mod, and do it better.

If you don't want to step up yourselves, stop the moaning, and accept he has to make a judgement.

I you think he's got it wrong, so what? It's a comment on a tennis forum. Worse things happen at sea!

legendkillarV2 wrote:Did I miss anything on my way home?

Depends - did you pick up a bag of sh1t to throw at me?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:Did I miss anything on my way home?

Depends - did you pick up a bag of sh1t to throw at me?

I just seen the bag of excrement. I am with HM.

You have my undivided support and everyone needs to chill.

Its great to pick a side, but this isnt the first time I get repeatedly heckled and then get called the red headed stepchild when I respond in kind.

kingraf wrote:How many warnings you've given Leo ostensibly irrelevant as only one of those were related to me, and it came after my warning - for calling Leo sad. You believe being sad is worse than being silly, I suppose. I don't particularly care. But I would like to see consistency. Two of Leo's first three posts were directed at me, ridiculing comments which had nothing to do with him. But I suppose it's all fine, because you gave him a warning that had nothing to do with me!

Its all well saying "attack the post not the poster" but Leo has long since set up stalls for an assault on me, seeing as you've done nothing hitherto, I've taken it upon  myself to respond in kind.

KR if you say 2 of Leo's first 3 posts were directed at you, then I'm sure they were, but I genuinely can't keep track of every post, let alone who's replying to/quoting whom. Obviously it's more noticeable to you, as they were directed at you, but there's no way I can keep track of all the stuff like that.

Thats not my issue Julius - my issue is, while you seem to miss the initial catalysts (understandable, as I have told you before), you seem to always pick it up when I finally retort.... Everytime. I can't think you have in for me, as we generally get along on the more nonsensical forums in 606... But, you must understand why I find it remarkable that you seem to only ever catch me throwing the punches.

hawkeye wrote:

Leonard777 wrote:The best bit is, Nadal now has to save so many points next season it's going to make me keel over in a fit of laughter watching him fail.  

Ha ha! Nadal would have been better off losing all those matches.

Obviously you don't understand race points. Maybe someone would explain them to you if you asked really nicely...

Don't think Rafa cares about points that much to be honest, and he's likely to gain points at Wimbledon and baring injury certain to do so in Australia. Nadal doesn't lose matches by choice (except for those who believe he threw his match in Wimbledon to rest for the HC season)

so its better to not win many points so that the next year you have less to defend? is that it?

Apparently so

kingraf wrote:Thats not my issue Julius - my issue is, while you seem to miss the initial catalysts (understandable, as I have told you before), you seem to always pick it up when I finally retort.... Everytime. I can't think you have in for me, as we generally get along on the more nonsensical forums in 606... But, you must understand why I find it remarkable that you seem to only ever catch me throwing the punches.

I dunno tbh - maybe you throw bigger punches following less noticeable catalysts? I can only think of two times I've caught you punching anything, and even then all I did was call 'break', not dock you a point

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, I agree with much of what you say, especially about Hewitt. I rate him very highly, it's a shame injury took so much of his career.

The only part I disagree (slightly) with you on is about Federer and Nadal having it the same. They faced the same players in 05-07, yes, but they were on completely different stages of their career arcs.

I would say, on average, Rafa probably had to go through tougher opponents to get his slams. I think in 10 of his 13 he had to face Federer or Djokovic along the way?

I think the flaw in the weak era theory is that although Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin and Roddick didn't carve out the careers that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have, it doesn't really have any bearing on how they played on that day. Baghdatis, as I recall, was playing really well in AO06.

If we are talking consistent opponents though, then I'd have to say post 07 was tougher than pre 07.

Thanks HM. Yes, that is the thing. Had Federer not dominated so much those players would certainly have more on their CV. The fact that they haven't got those accolades has no bearing on how well they played on that day. Players can, and probably have, won titles playing worse than those players had during those periods.

I also think it comes down to memory as well. We have no idea how well they played in those games. No one has that good a memory. We only judge them on what they won. Then as they tailed off, people think they played like that back in the period when Fed was beating them.

So Socal, yes. Those players you mention are very good. I particularly enjoy watching Tsonga and Del Potro. But its just impossible to compare them against the crop you called pushover opponents. I also don't get what Nadal's serve in those days has to do with any of it. I do get you probably are being a tongue in cheek sometimes. I enjoy your posts especially the technical aspect you talk about. But calling someone 'clearly' the GOAT I took as not being tongue in cheek. But if anything, with Hewitt not being dominate shows the field was OK at least, as Hewitt was a fine player. You can't have a situation where someone who dominates indicates a weak field, or where someone doesn't dominate it indicates a weak field. Memories fade unfortunately. And we always assume what we have now is better..which as someone has said..generally happens in sport anyway. But both Nadal and Fed have existed in the same 'era'. Either way, if someone is a stand out from their peers..that's all they can be judged on.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:Thats not my issue Julius - my issue is, while you seem to miss the initial catalysts (understandable, as I have told you before), you seem to always pick it up when I finally retort.... Everytime. I can't think you have in for me, as we generally get along on the more nonsensical forums in 606... But, you must understand why I find it remarkable that you seem to only ever catch me throwing the punches.

I dunno tbh - maybe you throw bigger punches following less noticeable catalysts? I can only think of two times I've caught you punching anything, and even then all I did was call 'break', not dock you a point

I must admit, looking back at the last two odd pages, I did probably delve into the nonsensical a tad. I apologise. And you are right you've only really told me to go into a neutral corner once before this. But that's more because I generally ignore idiotic comments directed at me, rather than because I exaggerate how often I post innocuous comments which apparently P.O people.

Just seems sometimes that people are trying their hands at uncoding quite simple posts, and decide, "I'm hoping for a good performance from Rafa" is actually a anagram for "I am a member the Bilderberg group and we secretly use tennis to promote Nadal as your Overlord" in a previously unknown Hebrew dialect used by esoteric Egyptian magicians.

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:You made the rules by which we are all supposed to abide... hence Socal leaving the forum.  Does it not apply to new members because if you have changed the rule book I would like a copy please

I didn't make any rules. Socal didn't leave the forum for any rule-related reason, as far as I know. See my above post re: censorship.

If i left because of anything you did it would be as a result of your bad attempts at comedy. PS we were throwing bags of shiit at Julius and I missed it, damn it, I feel like they guy who missed out on the party of they year.

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Haddie-nuff wrote:You made the rules by which we are all supposed to abide... hence Socal leaving the forum.  Does it not apply to new members because if you have changed the rule book I would like a copy please

I didn't make any rules. Socal didn't leave the forum for any rule-related reason, as far as I know. See my above post re: censorship.

If i left because of anything you did it would be as a result of your bad attempts at comedy. PS we were throwing bags of shiit at Julius and I missed it, damn it, I feel like they guy who missed out on the party of they year.

It's still early socal - I'm sure there's plenty of poo-flinging time available

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal, even with all that, Fed's prime years were 2004 - 2007, and his slow decline coincided with first Rafa's ascendency, then Djoko's.
It's impossible to know if Fed would have dominated them if they had been born at the same time or vice versa.
Didn't Rafa win most of his slams while Djoko was asthmatic and against no other truly great clay court players? Doesn't his weak clay era from 2005 onwards count against his GOAT-hood, or it is only Fed that suffers that argument?
Maybe poor old Fed was denied the opportunity of even greater things by being born too soon.

There are so many variables and what if's that it's not possible to state that any player is 'clearly' the GOAT, especially when you're not even taking all players into consideration!

Seconded!

Johnyjeep wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, I agree with much of what you say, especially about Hewitt. I rate him very highly, it's a shame injury took so much of his career.

The only part I disagree (slightly) with you on is about Federer and Nadal having it the same. They faced the same players in 05-07, yes, but they were on completely different stages of their career arcs.

I would say, on average, Rafa probably had to go through tougher opponents to get his slams. I think in 10 of his 13 he had to face Federer or Djokovic along the way?

I think the flaw in the weak era theory is that although Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin and Roddick didn't carve out the careers that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have, it doesn't really have any bearing on how they played on that day. Baghdatis, as I recall, was playing really well in AO06.

If we are talking consistent opponents though, then I'd have to say post 07 was tougher than pre 07.

Thanks HM. Yes, that is the thing. Had Federer not dominated so much those players would certainly have more on their CV. The fact that they haven't got those accolades has no bearing on how well they played on that day. Players can, and probably have, won titles playing worse than those players had during those periods.

I also think it comes down to memory as well. We have no idea how well they played in those games. No one has that good a memory. We only judge them on what they won. Then as they tailed off, people think they played like that back in the period when Fed was beating them.

So Socal, yes. Those players you mention are very good. I particularly enjoy watching Tsonga and Del Potro. But its just impossible to compare them against the crop you called pushover opponents. I also don't get what Nadal's serve in those days has to do with any of it. I do get you probably are being a tongue in cheek sometimes. I enjoy your posts especially the technical aspect you talk about. But calling someone 'clearly' the GOAT I took as not being tongue in cheek. But if anything, with Hewitt not being dominate shows the field was OK at least, as Hewitt was a fine player. You can't have a situation where someone who dominates indicates a weak field, or where someone doesn't dominate it indicates a weak field. Memories fade unfortunately. And we always assume what we have now is better..which as someone has said..generally happens in sport anyway. Either way if someone is a stand out from their peers..that's all they can be judged on.

Come on Johnny, what Nadal's massive improvement in his serve, volleys, and flat forehand vis a vis 2006 and 2007 have to do with it is that he clearly improved technically as a player over the period in time when he WAS FEDERER'S ONLY SERIOUS RIVAL. As for Hewitt not dominating the field it could be one of two reasons. 1. the field was super strong 2. He was good but just not good enough to dominate. I go with number #2, we don't live in a vacuum examine the actually accomplishments and objective facts of what his contemporaries did and how they performed against the new wave players of the djoko, murray, and Nadal class of players. Of course it is subjective and to an extent opinion based. But not all opinions are equal, I mean if I tell you that the universe was created by a dragon farting and this is my opinion and it is a relevant as lets say the big bang theory well then we are not living in a logical world. There are opinions and then there are opinions, not all are equal.

Johnyjeep wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal, even with all that, Fed's prime years were 2004 - 2007, and his slow decline coincided with first Rafa's ascendency, then Djoko's.
It's impossible to know if Fed would have dominated them if they had been born at the same time or vice versa.
Didn't Rafa win most of his slams while Djoko was asthmatic and against no other truly great clay court players? Doesn't his weak clay era from 2005 onwards count against his GOAT-hood, or it is only Fed that suffers that argument?
Maybe poor old Fed was denied the opportunity of even greater things by being born too soon.

There are so many variables and what if's that it's not possible to state that any player is 'clearly' the GOAT, especially when you're not even taking all players into consideration!

Seconded!

I think I answered this critique about a weak clay court era. First off, the guy won like 80 matches in a row on clay, I don't care if he beat challenger level players 80 times in a row on clay that number is outrageous. Second, the knock on the modern tour is that everyone is just fit, fast, and has great groundstrokes and not much else. The reason there are no clay court specialists is that the whole tour plays a style of play super conducive to clay in effect the whole tour for the most part are clay court specialists. Thirdly, his last two wins over Djokovic proves his clay pedigree. Why? Djokovic if not for Nadal would already have one or two clay titles, he has two finals appearances at RG and has won basically every other major clay court tournament on tour in many of those finals beating Nadal. Maybe the argument holds water in 04-07, how do you explain its application to his wins in 2012 and 2013 against the baseline monster known as Novak Djokovic?

kingraf wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:Thats not my issue Julius - my issue is, while you seem to miss the initial catalysts (understandable, as I have told you before), you seem to always pick it up when I finally retort.... Everytime. I can't think you have in for me, as we generally get along on the more nonsensical forums in 606... But, you must understand why I find it remarkable that you seem to only ever catch me throwing the punches.

I dunno tbh - maybe you throw bigger punches following less noticeable catalysts? I can only think of two times I've caught you punching anything, and even then all I did was call 'break', not dock you a point

I must admit, looking back at the last two odd pages, I did probably delve into the nonsensical a tad. I apologise. And you are right you've only really told me to go into a neutral corner once before this. But that's more because I generally ignore idiotic comments directed at me, rather than because I exaggerate how often I post innocuous comments which apparently P.O people.

Just seems sometimes that people are trying their hands at uncoding quite simple posts, and decide, "I'm hoping for a good performance from Rafa" is actually a anagram for "I am a member the Bilderberg group and we secretly use tennis to promote Nadal as your Overlord" in a previously unknown Hebrew dialect used by esoteric Egyptian magicians.

No problem KR.
It's probably similar to how socal interprets Fed's "I thought my opponent played well, but got a bit lucky" as "I am an arrogant egotistical self-important chump who under ordinary circumstances would never lose to this player, who isn't fit to shine my shoes".

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

kingraf wrote:Thats not my issue Julius - my issue is, while you seem to miss the initial catalysts (understandable, as I have told you before), you seem to always pick it up when I finally retort.... Everytime. I can't think you have in for me, as we generally get along on the more nonsensical forums in 606... But, you must understand why I find it remarkable that you seem to only ever catch me throwing the punches.

I dunno tbh - maybe you throw bigger punches following less noticeable catalysts? I can only think of two times I've caught you punching anything, and even then all I did was call 'break', not dock you a point

I must admit, looking back at the last two odd pages, I did probably delve into the nonsensical a tad. I apologise. And you are right you've only really told me to go into a neutral corner once before this. But that's more because I generally ignore idiotic comments directed at me, rather than because I exaggerate how often I post innocuous comments which apparently P.O people.

Just seems sometimes that people are trying their hands at uncoding quite simple posts, and decide, "I'm hoping for a good performance from Rafa" is actually a anagram for "I am a member the Bilderberg group and we secretly use tennis to promote Nadal as your Overlord" in a previously unknown Hebrew dialect used by esoteric Egyptian magicians.

No problem KR.
It's probably similar to how socal interprets Fed's "I thought my opponent played well, but got a bit lucky" as "I am an arrogant egotistical self-important chump who under ordinary circumstances would never lose to this player, who isn't fit to shine my shoes".

Made me chuckle heartily

socal1976 wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:socal, even with all that, Fed's prime years were 2004 - 2007, and his slow decline coincided with first Rafa's ascendency, then Djoko's.
It's impossible to know if Fed would have dominated them if they had been born at the same time or vice versa.
Didn't Rafa win most of his slams while Djoko was asthmatic and against no other truly great clay court players? Doesn't his weak clay era from 2005 onwards count against his GOAT-hood, or it is only Fed that suffers that argument?
Maybe poor old Fed was denied the opportunity of even greater things by being born too soon.

There are so many variables and what if's that it's not possible to state that any player is 'clearly' the GOAT, especially when you're not even taking all players into consideration!

Seconded!

I think I answered this critique about a weak clay court era. First off, the guy won like 80 matches in a row on clay, I don't care if he beat challenger level players 80 times in a row on clay that number is outrageous. Second, the knock on the modern tour is that everyone is just fit, fast, and has great groundstrokes and not much else. The reason there are no clay court specialists is that the whole tour plays a style of play super conducive to clay in effect the whole tour for the most part are clay court specialists. Thirdly, his last two wins over Djokovic proves his clay pedigree. Why? Djokovic if not for Nadal would already have one or two clay titles, he has two finals appearances at RG and has won basically every other major clay court tournament on tour in many of those finals beating Nadal. Maybe the argument holds water in 04-07, how do you explain its application to his wins in 2012 and 2013 against the baseline monster known as Novak Djokovic?

If not for Federer, Roddick (4 times Queens club winner) would have won 2 or 3 Wimbledons. Too many ifs and buts socal - it's far too much theory and doesn't hold enough water to make anyone a 'clear' GOAT.
However, I do like how you use Djokovic to 'prove' Rafa's clay court pedigree. Remind me who your favourite player is again

Thread of the year!!! So we all agree that a little bit of b1tching, makes us all happy here.

Kudos to JHM for policing us better then Harry Callahan

Jahu wrote:Thread of the year!!! So we all agree that a little bit of b1tching, makes us all happy here.

Kudos to JHM for policing us better then Harry Callahan

Go ahead Jahu - make my day. Do you feel lucky?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jahu wrote:Thread of the year!!! So we all agree that a little bit of b1tching, makes us all happy here.

Kudos to JHM for policing us better then Harry Callahan

Go ahead Jahu - make my day. Do you feel lucky?

I was thinking more like Inspector Clouseau

socal1976 wrote:

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Jahu wrote:Thread of the year!!! So we all agree that a little bit of b1tching, makes us all happy here.

Kudos to JHM for policing us better then Harry Callahan

Go ahead Jahu - make my day. Do you feel lucky?

I was thinking more like Inspector Clouseau

As long as it's not the Steve Martin version, mon ami.

Dooees your dohhhgg bite?

its true that nadal will have loads of points to defend in 2014 but its also true he will have some places to recover:

australian open: 0 points defended (nole winner)
miami: 0 points defended
montecarlo: defends less points than djokovic
wimbledon: defends only first round (nole finalist)

naxroy wrote:so its better to not win many points so that the next year you have less to defend? is that it?

Apparently Djokovic has been overheard trying to convince Nadal that this would be a good plan

The power off the berdych forehand is ridiculous!! Phenomenal ball striker, if only he was mentally stronger.

Jahu wrote:Thread of the year!!! So we all agree that a little bit of b1tching, makes us all happy here.

Kudos to JHM for policing us better then Harry Callahan

I know it's a great thread.

But seriously I couldn't have done it without you guys!

CAS wrote:The match was stunning, shame Federer lost it but I'm glad I am now able to say IMO I watched the greatest player that ever lived live. Danny where were you sitting?  I was in block 113 just to the right of the Umpire. You are so right about federers slice it was devastating and should have used it more

CAS - I was in block 408. On the second tier but right at the front. It was at the end they walked out, but the other corner... If that makes sense. I had a great view of the Federer backhand slice to the Novak backhand, and it was so effective but he used it so rarely. It was actually quite frustrating. I know he doesn't use that slice against Rafa very often as Rafa plays it well, but I felt he could have won if he'd used it more last night.

Glad you enjoyed it too. That second set was incredible to see live. So much tension.

socal1976 wrote:

Johnyjeep wrote:

HM Murdoch wrote:Johnyjeep, I agree with much of what you say, especially about Hewitt. I rate him very highly, it's a shame injury took so much of his career.

The only part I disagree (slightly) with you on is about Federer and Nadal having it the same. They faced the same players in 05-07, yes, but they were on completely different stages of their career arcs.

I would say, on average, Rafa probably had to go through tougher opponents to get his slams. I think in 10 of his 13 he had to face Federer or Djokovic along the way?

I think the flaw in the weak era theory is that although Baghdatis, Gonzalez, Safin and Roddick didn't carve out the careers that Nadal, Djokovic and Murray have, it doesn't really have any bearing on how they played on that day. Baghdatis, as I recall, was playing really well in AO06.

If we are talking consistent opponents though, then I'd have to say post 07 was tougher than pre 07.

Thanks HM. Yes, that is the thing. Had Federer not dominated so much those players would certainly have more on their CV. The fact that they haven't got those accolades has no bearing on how well they played on that day. Players can, and probably have, won titles playing worse than those players had during those periods.

I also think it comes down to memory as well. We have no idea how well they played in those games. No one has that good a memory. We only judge them on what they won. Then as they tailed off, people think they played like that back in the period when Fed was beating them.

So Socal, yes. Those players you mention are very good. I particularly enjoy watching Tsonga and Del Potro. But its just impossible to compare them against the crop you called pushover opponents. I also don't get what Nadal's serve in those days has to do with any of it. I do get you probably are being a tongue in cheek sometimes. I enjoy your posts especially the technical aspect you talk about. But calling someone 'clearly' the GOAT I took as not being tongue in cheek. But if anything, with Hewitt not being dominate shows the field was OK at least, as Hewitt was a fine player. You can't have a situation where someone who dominates indicates a weak field, or where someone doesn't dominate it indicates a weak field. Memories fade unfortunately. And we always assume what we have now is better..which as someone has said..generally happens in sport anyway. Either way if someone is a stand out from their peers..that's all they can be judged on.

Come on Johnny, what Nadal's massive improvement in his serve, volleys, and flat forehand vis a vis 2006 and 2007 have to do with it is that he clearly improved technically as a player over the period in time when he WAS FEDERER'S ONLY SERIOUS RIVAL. As for Hewitt not dominating the field it could be one of two reasons. 1. the field was super strong 2. He was good but just not good enough to dominate. I go with number #2, we don't live in a vacuum examine the actually accomplishments and objective facts of what his contemporaries did and how they performed against the new wave players of the djoko, murray, and Nadal class of players. Of course it is subjective and to an extent opinion based. But not all opinions are equal, I mean if I tell you that the universe was created by a dragon farting and this is my opinion and it is a relevant as lets say the big bang theory well then we are not living in a logical world. There are opinions and then there are opinions, not all are equal.

Yes indeed. As is your opinion that your opinion on the matter is correct. And it all stems from your opinion of the quality of players playing tennis in a 3 year window. Like this cohort of players were significantly weaker than  any others. This is because of their records on paper (which will have been skewed by RF dominance) rather than how good they played on any individual day.

I'll leave it there anyway Socal. I'll just have to disagree with u on this point.

Looks like Ferrer tired himself out last week. Even if he beats Stan he will be out as he can't catch Berdych. Stan looks in pole position to make it through.