US Open Seeds announced

First topic message reminder :

At The USTA Billie Jean King National Tennis Center

New York

Aug. 27-Sept. 9

Men

1. Roger Federer, Switzerland

2. Novak Djokovic, Serbia

3. Andy Murray, Great Britain

4. David Ferrer, Spain

5. Jo-Wilfred Tsonga, France

6. Tomas Berdych, Czech Republic

7. Juan Martin del Potro, Argentina

8. Janko Tipsarevic, Serbia

9. John Isner, United States

10. Juan Monaco, Argentina

11. Nicolas Almagro, Spain

12. Marin Cilic, Croatia

13. Richard Gasquet, France

14. Alexandr Dolgopolov, Ukraine

15. Milos Raonic, Canada

16. Gilles Simon, France

17. Kei Nishikori, Japan

18. Stanislas Wawrinka, Switzerland

19. Philipp Kohlschreiber, Germany

20. Andy Roddick, United States

21. Tommy Haas, Germany

22. Florian Mayer, Germany

23. Mardy Fish, United States

24. Marcel Granollers, Spain

25. Fernando Verdasco, Spain

26. Andreas Seppi, Italy

27. Sam Querrey, United States

28. Mikhail Youzhny, Russia

29. Viktor Troicki, Serbia

30. Feliciano Lopez, Spain

31. Julien Benneteau, France

32. Jeremy Chardy, France

http://www.cbssports.com/tennis/story/19855998/us-open-seeds

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

I don't even think you bother reading posts any more, just react.

I was saying there is no weak era, and Federer has proven it by going to #1 at the age of 31.

Bogbrush, did you not write an article IIRC which stated that you think this is quite a weak era as Monaco got in Top 10.
I can't remember if it was you.

No, I wrote an article ridiculing the idea this was a "Golden Era" for that reason.

Just as I cite the position of a 31 year old at #1 as further evidence this cannot be some particularly amazing period. And Ferrer.

I have long taken the view that people only come up with this weak / Golden garbage to boost their favourites. It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.

bogbrush wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

I don't even think you bother reading posts any more, just react.

I was saying there is no weak era, and Federer has proven it by going to #1 at the age of 31.

Fair point. I haven't been on a lot of late due to work and other commitments so yes it was more a reactionary post in this case. I stand by my basic point though. As for Federer being No.1 at 31 it proves zilch apart from backing up why he is seen as GOAT. I have said it before if you hold or seek to hold the title of GOAT then people should expect/nay demand the unexpected.

It Must Be Love wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins... plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

This post doesn't go down well with me.
Firstly remove the words 'clay-court.'
Secondly Nadal doesn't have 10 slams.

Sorry IMBL - Nadal's 11 slam wins but no I won't remove clay-court as my point is that he is the greatest of all-time on clay. I don't really think that is such a ground-breaking claim. And that is not saying he is too shoddy on other surfaces. Hope that clears things up for you.

Do we know why this point was even brought up? I would've thought the forum was in a quiet place of peace knowing that the draw rigging thing was a load of nutsacks.

Just to add I've never bought into draw-rigging either. I always feel you take who you have been drawn against and get on with it.

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

Some bookies will probably make Djoko favourite now the draw is out, simply as he has the much-easier semi final. Del Po could be a prob for Nole, but is the Argentinian fully fit?
Now what happens? Do they start play with the bottom half of the draw with Djoko and company always a day ahead of Fed and company? And who will play first on Stupid Saturday?

bogbrush wrote: It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.

Heading the generation

He's won 1 Slam out of the last 10, which isn't bad I suppose.
However I really do feel that Roger relies on Nadal not being there in the latter stages of a Slam (either early exit or injury) for him to have a chance to win a Slam these days.
So yes, if one of the players isn't playing, then he can 'head' the generation.

I also believe Federer picked up a huge bulk of points in the indoor season last year- winning Basel, Paris, and WTF. Djokovic was wilting after a tiring season, and Nadal was all over the place and struggling with shoulder problems.
All credit to Federer for staying fit though, all credit to Federer.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote: It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.

Heading the generation

He's won 1 Slam out of the last 10, which isn't bad I suppose.
However I really do feel that Roger relies on Nadal not being there in the latter stages of a Slam (either early exit or injury) for him to have a chance to win a Slam these days.
So yes, if one of the players isn't playing, then he can 'head' the generation.

I also believe Federer picked up a huge bulk of points in the indoor season last year- winning Basel, Paris, and WTF. Djokovic was wilting after a tiring season, and Nadal was all over the place and struggling with shoulder problems.
All credit to Federer for staying fit though, all credit to Federer.

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win. Nadal has 11 to Federer who won 13 from 2005 onwards. Nadal has only ever won more than 2 Slams in a year twice compared with Federer who has done it on 5 ocassions. So yeah for me the head of his generation.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win.

That's 2005-2012.
Look at BB's post again- he was not talking about 2005-2012.

Bogbrush says:
It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.
By 'at his age' BB is not implying when Federer was 24

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win.

That's 2005-2012.
Look at BB's post again- he was not talking about 2005-2012.

Bogbrush says:
It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.
By 'at his age' BB is not implying when Federer was 24

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
But you get my point. Really, let's be honest, Federer relies on Nadal not being there in the latter stages of a slam to win these days.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

Murray won't get far enough to take on Fed anyways. The Olympics was the goal for him. I am more concerned of Mardy Fish early as round 3.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:Murray won't get far enough to take on Fed anyways. The Olympics was the goal for him. I am more concerned of Mardy Fish early as round 3.

Mardy Fish a bigger threat than Andy Murray
Seriously the weed you find at Castel Di Sangro must be very powerful.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win.

That's 2005-2012.
Look at BB's post again- he was not talking about 2005-2012.

Bogbrush says:
It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.
By 'at his age' BB is not implying when Federer was 24

Yes, and BB is right too. Fed is top of the pile as world #1 with 9 current titles to his name including a slam, the WTF, and 4 Masters. Nadal and/or Djokovic were in the draw of all 9 tournaments Fed won except for Rotterdam this year. Those are the facts.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

barrystar wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win.

That's 2005-2012.
Look at BB's post again- he was not talking about 2005-2012.

Bogbrush says:
It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.
By 'at his age' BB is not implying when Federer was 24

Yes, and BB is right too. Fed is top of the pile as world #1 with 9 current titles to his name including a slam, the WTF, and 4 Masters. Nadal and/or Djokovic were in the draw of all 9 tournaments Fed won except for Rotterdam this year. Those are the facts.

In my eyes being world number 1 doesn't mean you 'head the generation.' Djokovic holds more slams than Federer, which I see as a better indicator.

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

I have got your point and now you are backtracking.

You want to weigh your argument with the 'what has he done since 2010' as I said which you know weighs heavily in favour of Djokovic or Nadal for achievements.

My point is that there are generations. Call them periods if you will. If you not a believer of generations, then for me you can't believe in GOAT which again is a time based debate

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

I have got your point and now you are backtracking.

You want to weigh your argument with the 'what has he done since 2010' as I said which you know weighs heavily in favour of Djokovic or Nadal for achievements.

My point is that there are generations. Call them periods if you will. If you not a believer of generations, then for me you can't believe in GOAT which again is a time based debate

Shes only interested in the times when Federer has struggled. All 17 Federer slams are asterisked because they were won when everyone else was not at their best etc.

Josiah Maiestas wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

I have got your point and now you are backtracking.

You want to weigh your argument with the 'what has he done since 2010' as I said which you know weighs heavily in favour of Djokovic or Nadal for achievements.

My point is that there are generations. Call them periods if you will. If you not a believer of generations, then for me you can't believe in GOAT which again is a time based debate

Shes only interested in the times when Federer has struggled. All 17 Federer slams are asterisked because they were won when everyone else was not at their best etc.

Put like that it does seem a bit transparent - naughty IMBL!

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

I have got your point and now you are backtracking.

You want to weigh your argument with the 'what has he done since 2010' as I said which you know weighs heavily in favour of Djokovic or Nadal for achievements.

My point is that there are generations. Call them periods if you will. If you not a believer of generations, then for me you can't believe in GOAT which again is a time based debate

No, no, no.
I'm not backtracking.
I'm not arguing Federer is the best/not the best player of this generation. As I said we would then have to define the generation which is silly, as you could say from 2005, BB could say from 2000, and I could say 2010.

I was directly replying to BB's point about Federer heading the generation 'at this age.' Once again this is not set in stone (what does 'at this age' mean) but I assumed the last few years.

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

He wasn't 24 for 7 years

Really? Shocking stuff

No, seriously, I meant to say from 24.
Bogbrush was expressing how Federer heads the current generation, even at this age.

So if we took his quote at value, he wasn't 31 for the last 10 Slams and he wasn't 31 when winning at the back end of last season.

I think by 'at this age' Bogbrush didn't just mean the few months he is 31.

Seriously I think you know this.

No I think what it was is that you brought what you thought were 'relevant' facts to the argument and I did the same. Difference was is that because my facts held Federer in a higher esteem than yours, you wanted to reduce the argument to AO 2010 - now which we both know ranks in favour of Nadal and Djokovic in terms of achievements.

For me a generation he has competed in starts from 2000 onwards. For him and Nadal and Djokovic it started from 2005 when both players came on into the field. From the point in time Federer has dominated the rankings and the Slams. To really only look from 2010 really cheapens the generation if we are only concluding that the Nadal/Djokovic domination was only a 2 year spell.

You really aren't getting my point. If we look at the whole decade then Federer has won the most.
If we look at the last 7 years Federer has won the most.

BB was saying 'at this age' indicating that even when Federer is supposed to be an 'OAP' he still heads the generation.
In my eyes there's nothing called a 'generation' I think the tour just continuously rolls forward.

I have got your point and now you are backtracking.

You want to weigh your argument with the 'what has he done since 2010' as I said which you know weighs heavily in favour of Djokovic or Nadal for achievements.

My point is that there are generations. Call them periods if you will. If you not a believer of generations, then for me you can't believe in GOAT which again is a time based debate

No, no, no.
I'm not backtracking.
I'm not arguing Federer is the best/not the best player of this generation. As I said we would then have to define the generation which is silly, as you could say from 2005, BB could say from 2000, and I could say 2010.

I was directly replying to BB's point about Federer heading the generation 'at this age.' Once again this is not set in stone (what does 'at this age' mean) but I assumed the last few years.

Which you have said.

What is correct is that Federer heads 'his' generation. The best of his time. The achievements also back that.

No I did not say 2010 was a start of a generation. When did I say that?

I'm saying Roger hasn't dominated in recent years, certainly not like in the mid-noughties.

It Must Be Love wrote:

barrystar wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

legendkillarV2 wrote:

Shall we base on Nadal's first Slam win.

That's 2005-2012.
Look at BB's post again- he was not talking about 2005-2012.

Bogbrush says:
It's just hilarious that Federer has torpedoed their hopes by heading this generation at his age.
By 'at his age' BB is not implying when Federer was 24

Yes, and BB is right too. Fed is top of the pile as world #1 with 9 current titles to his name including a slam, the WTF, and 4 Masters. Nadal and/or Djokovic were in the draw of all 9 tournaments Fed won except for Rotterdam this year. Those are the facts.

In my eyes being world number 1 doesn't mean you 'head the generation.' Djokovic holds more slams than Federer, which I see as a better indicator.

I guess it's semantics. Fed would still be #1 now if he'd lost Wimbledon and a slamless #1 would not be the same, I agree; but since he holds the most recent slam and has beaten Djoko in the last two big matches they played as well as being #1 he's very clear top dog in my view. Fed could remain #1 on points if Djoko won the forthcoming USO, but Djoko would revert to being top dog in that eventuality in my view. If neither of them win and Fed stays #1 his position is cemented further.

Apologies looking back I did say 'heading the generation.'
I should have made it more clear- if you look at comment I directly quoted from BB who said 'at this age.'

I'll clear up what I meant.

I meant that after Wimbledon 2012 Federer, at virtually (and now actually) 31 was the top dog. His rivals had not fallen away to give him this - Nadal had just won the French but wasn't a threat to the #1 ranking and Djokovic held two Slams. Both performing well, then.

Yet Federer had ousted both, and beat Djokovic in the semi & Murray in he final. He held the WTF and many Masters. He was top dog, and no qualification to that was necessary or appropriate. He's since underlined it by winning the first Masters he entered, beating Djokovic again.

In doing so he showed that at 31, in a game which as drifted towards his opponents strengths, he could still be the best player.

That in my book kills the Golden Era theory, based on the idea that there is a group of super-players beyond the level of the past. No way does such a group get bested by a 31 year old playing in handicapped conditions.

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

There can be only one, as they say, and he can't be the guy with 6 fewer Slams and only four gained on three events.

bogbrush wrote:I'll clear up what I meant.

I meant that after Wimbledon 2012 Federer, at virtually (and now actually) 31 was the top dog. His rivals had not fallen away to give him this

Really?

So Nadal Djoker and Murray were in decline at Wimby 2012 were they?

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

There can be only one, as they say, and he can't be the guy with 6 fewer Slams and only four gained on three events.

If Nadal at 26 had the same number of slams as Federer who is 5 years older then there would be no discussion about who was GOAT. As it is things are still interesting for those that like to debate such things.

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'll clear up what I meant.

I meant that after Wimbledon 2012 Federer, at virtually (and now actually) 31 was the top dog. His rivals had not fallen away to give him this

Really?

Yes, really. Nadal just won a Slam, if you recall.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

There can be only one, as they say, and he can't be the guy with 6 fewer Slams and only four gained on three events.

If Nadal at 26 had the same number of slams as Federer who is 5 years older then there would be no discussion about who was GOAT. As it is things are still interesting for those that like to debate such things.

You're factoring in potential future wins?

Not sound.

bogbrush wrote:

It Must Be Love wrote:

bogbrush wrote:I'll clear up what I meant.

I meant that after Wimbledon 2012 Federer, at virtually (and now actually) 31 was the top dog. His rivals had not fallen away to give him this

Really?

Yes, really. Nadal just won a Slam, if you recall.

Yeah, I think I recall that pretty well

Nadal lost early (might have been injured too?), Djokovic looked out of sorts, Murray played well but doesn't have another gear in Slams like the Top 3.

Overall I still believe that Federer's level atm is as high as it was during 2010 and 2011, I don't think there's a huge difference in the quality of his play.

Anyway there are some Federer fans on ja606 who think Federer's Wimbledon win was down to luck:

Has he ever had such an easy draw in his whole career? However his form being very poor in his first 4 matches should have cost him an early round loss. Benneteau was at 2 points from winning it 4 times if I remember.
Malisse had to deal with a completely powerless Federer but was simply overwhelmed by the centre court and the occasion. Federer even apologised to him at the end. Same thing happened with Youzhny losing his focus though Federer started to play a bit better making it even more one sided than v Malisse.
Then came the semi v Djokovic, clearly by then Fed's back was improving fast but again Djokovic was noticeably well under par, in fact under the weather it seems as a cold was blamed for his relative poor performance.
But surely Fed would be tested v Murray in the final and any sub-par performance by Federer would be exposed by the Scott. And so he was with a few points for a set and a break down, nearly 2 sets down...only saved by some pieces of luck again and great skills from the maestro. But Federer's luck would not stop there; the rain came also on time to shut the element out of that final and allow the lucky champion to play indoors where his timing is most efficient and can make the difference against the other top 4 players. With his back well warmed up into that 3rd set he would surely be unstoppable. But lady luck wanted to make sure Federer would get his 7th Wimbledon. Indeed, having just watched the last 2 sets, it;s clear that Murray was physically struggling badly with his mouvement. Whether it's his back or too much lactic acid in his huge thighs he is a shadow of the player he was in set 1 and 2.

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

There can be only one, as they say, and he can't be the guy with 6 fewer Slams and only four gained on three events.

If Nadal at 26 had the same number of slams as Federer who is 5 years older then there would be no discussion about who was GOAT. As it is things are still interesting for those that like to debate such things.

You're factoring in potential future wins?

Not sound.

I'm factoring in future playing years because not doing so is unsound. The whole reason why the "who is the best Nadal or Federer" debate creeps into almost ever tennis discussion is that they are so close and there is an argument for both players being declared "the best". Don't you think this in itself makes this an interesting era to watch?

Are Murray's thighs abnormally huge?

The Special Juan wrote:Are Murray's thighs abnormally huge?

I didn't write that, the quote was from a Federer fan (Zenet backwards) on ja606. (I can't give the link).

IMBL

Who wrote that? Murray lost because of "too much lactic acid in his huge thighs"? I want to say so many things but I will just get myself into trouble...

hawkeye wrote:IMBL

Who wrote that? Murray lost because of "too much lactic acid in his huge thighs"? I want to say so many things but I will just get myself into trouble...

I've already said...

It Must Be Love wrote:

The Special Juan wrote:Are Murray's thighs abnormally huge?

I didn't write that, the quote was from a Federer fan (Zenet backwards) on ja606. (I can't give the link).

I see. I'm still chuckling, although the expression "thunder thighs" could have been used at least.

Oh have just seen your reply. I could never understand why that certain Federer fan never noticed Murray's huge thighs... But I guess he has now. He appears to have been blinded by them and doesn't appear to be quite the Federer fan he once was.

Murray doesn't have huge thighs.

German track cyclist Robert Forstermann on the other hand (on the right, the left is road cyclist Andrei Greipel)...

Spoiler:

dummy_half wrote:Murray doesn't have huge thighs.

German track cyclist Robert Forstermann on the other hand (on the right, the left is road cyclist Andrei Greipel)...

Spoiler:

Wow that's... disturbing.

It Must Be Love wrote:Nadal lost early (might have been injured too?), Djokovic looked out of sorts, Murray played well but doesn't have another gear in Slams like the Top 3.

... and he won the Olympics on the same surface a few weeks later in a Bo5 match. Where are all the 'strong era' posters who will now take you to task for the underlined part.

It Must Be Love wrote:Overall I still believe that Federer's level atm is as high as it was during 2010 and 2011, I don't think there's a huge difference in the quality of his play.

2010 W/L - 65/13
2011 W/L - 64/12
2012 W/L - 56/7 (so far)

He will probably play USO, Basel, Shanghai, WTF, which is conservatively, another 20 matches. so 75+ matches. The Ls are still in single digits, so far.

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

bogbrush wrote:

hawkeye wrote:

CaledonianCraig wrote:Well I don't want to re-open a can of worms here so will only say that sorry to disagree but how can we have a weak era with a GOAT with eighteen slam wins, a clay court GOAT with ten slam wins, plus a five times slam winner plying their trade. We'll agree to disagree on that one and leave it at that.

Don't worry everyone I will fix it...

A GOAT with SEVENTEEN slam wins (so far) who is pretty nifty on grass and hard, A GOAT with eleven slam wins (so far) who is unmatched on clay and A GREAT with five slam wins (so far) who had an amazing 2011.

There now everyone should be happy!

There can be only one, as they say, and he can't be the guy with 6 fewer Slams and only four gained on three events.

If Nadal at 26 had the same number of slams as Federer who is 5 years older then there would be no discussion about who was GOAT. As it is things are still interesting for those that like to debate such things.

You're factoring in potential future wins?

Not sound.

I'm factoring in future playing years because not doing so is unsound. The whole reason why the "who is the best Nadal or Federer" debate creeps into almost ever tennis discussion is that they are so close and there is an argument for both players being declared "the best". Don't you think this in itself makes this an interesting era to watch?

Wishful thinking I'm afraid.

1. Rafa has no great record of winning many Slams off clay and is passing his best. He will not reach 16 I promise you.

2. The only place that debate happens is in Rafa fans heads. Pretty much everyone else knows who the boss is.