No argument from me
If anything, it's the Big 3.5. To his credit, he has 2 slams and has beaten all 3 in a major....but he's just not up there with the other 3, all things considered.
Wimbledon 2014 |OT| Best Sport on Grass
- Thread starter Diamond
- Start date
- Status
No argument from me
If anything, it's the Big 3.5. To his credit, he has 2 slams and has beaten all 3 in a major....but he's just not up there with the other 3, all things considered.
Hmm...I would say his career is still below all of those three...
Grand Slams:
2-5 Murray
2-2 Hewitt
2-2 Safin
1-4 Roddick
Olympics:
1-0 Murray
0-0 All of the others
World Tour Finals:
2-1 Hewitt
0-0 All of the others
Masters Series:
9-3 Murray
5-4 Roddick
5-3 Safin
2-5 Hewitt
Total Weeks at #1:
80 Hewitt
13 Roddick
9 Safin
0 Murray
Based on all of the above, I personally would rank them as follows:
1) Hewitt
2) Safin (his extra grand slam over Roddick gives him the edge)
3) Roddick (his weeks @ number 1 give him the edge)
4) Murray
Ozzy Onya A2Z
Member
Yep, Hewitt's run at #1 was awesome, hard work got done. He played so many tournaments during that time.
Fedbot shed tears because he knows Nadal will still win 4 more French Opens.
I hope Novak at least ends up with 10....
Should check out the Novak Vs Nadal final from the 2013 Aus open, too epic.
I hope Novak at least ends up with 10....
Should check out the Novak Vs Nadal final from the 2013 Aus open, too epic.
This is beyond silly - it's objectively stupid. Rankings mean NOTHING compared to slams.
curlyfriski
Banned
Murray is playing with way tougher competition at the top, of course he's going to have fewer weeks at #1. Plus it's the least valued of all those accomplishments. I'd say Murray is ahead of all three of those guys, by virtue of his Masters series titles and playing in a better era of men's tennis.
Because he's won the same amount of slams as Hewitt and has no WTF's?
He may very well end up with more slams, but surely his career to date is not superior to Hewitt's....
As for Laver...there's the added complication that a lot of his GS wins were before the Open Era which if counted could've made him "ranked #1".
I'm comparing Hewitt to Murray because they can be compared directly...career-wise
I won't comment on Safin and Roddick because I don't care as much about them haha
Because he was in 7 GS finals and 12 Masters finals with 2 GS titles and 9 Masters titles. He had 21 matches against Federer and won 11 of them. Give me Hewitt at his best age and let him play against 2013-Murray. Murray would smash him 3:0.
I'm not the biggest fan of Murray, but he is a superb player with only 1 problem: Nadal & Djokovic playing better than him.
Well that's not the only problem. I mean from the start of this season he's lacked the right attitude on court. He's going through some tennis issues at the moment. If he played at his best he would be a Wimbledon / slam contender even with djoko and all the rest. Hopefully he bounces back from this period.
curlyfriski
Banned
I always get the impression that Murray's biggest problem is Murray.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Pretty much. The trouble with Murray is that he has terrible mental inertia. If he's feeling confident, he's great, if he's not, he's shit - but he can't really change between the two. There are very rarely momentum swings in Murray matches - you can usually tell quite quickly whether he'll win or lose with a high degree of accuracy. With respect to the above conversation, I think Hewitt has better career than Murray, but Murray's career was better than Safin's and Roddick's. However, Murray is quite easily the best player of the four, and I say that as a Hewitt fan who grew up with a backwards baseball cap on his head. Murray was just unlucky enough to play in a much stronger generation than Hewitt did. The way I see it, it's sort of analogous to Federer's 2006 vs. Djokovic's 2011 - just on a numbers basis, Federer's 2006 was mildly better, but in terms of the actual level of play, Djokovic 2011 was just something else entirely.
That's what surprised me. Federer, especially in the second and third sets, didn't seem capable of winning any easy points in 3+ hits rallies or return games, and relied on an almost perfect serve and Djokovic rare mistakes. That's just not his game, he can't be passive from the baseline. It's a shame because he is still capable of playing like he used to, the end of the match proved it.
I'm not as severe as you on his overall performance, his serve was sensational yesterday and it's a big factor on grass, as we all know. It wasn't raw power, he was just using every type of serve with perfect accuracy, effects and consistency. It wasn't luck, it wasn't a thing that happened randomly, it has to be celebrated for what it is.
A quick look at the stats : 29 aces, 75 winners, 29 errors, 70% first serves in, it's just a very high level of play.
Djokovic was just stronger from the baseline (offense and defense), unreal in the passing-shot compartment while being very good on his serves too. He was the best player, but I do think he needed to be at his best to defeat yesterday's Federer, even if this Federer was clearly less decisive in rallies.
His matches against Cilic & Dimitrov were quite good.
His brilliant serving masked a lot of his tactical deficiencies and general lack of penetration in the rest of his game yesterday.
He got himself engaged in far too many extended rallies which for him is never going to be a winning strategy. He pretty much lost every baseline exchange in the first two sets and looked clueless as to how he could break down Djokovic's defense besides net rushing (which sometimes worked and other times looked Roddick like). His topspin backhand was used far too often when the slice was far less risky and had more purpose. I honestly don't know why he even bothered with the topspin backhand let alone hit it as much as he did. He was winning far more points simply by slicing which is a proven tactic to disrupt Djokovic's baseline rhythm.
As someone who has watched him since 2001 at Wimbledon it was sad to see how ineffectual his forehand was in the final. He should have been blasting it at every opportunity (and accepting the UEs) but it looked like he was simply unable to whether it be due to natural decline, lack of confidence or the new racket. The good thing was that he was barely making any errors but at the same time they had weren't hurting his opponent at all. It's clear he can still produce in patches since his shots had noticeably more intent once he went down a break in the fourth. For him to spend the majority of the rallies neutral against Djokovic on grass is simply ridiculous and never going to win.
The fact that Djokovic barely slipped in the first three sets just highlights Federer's inability to exploit his questionable movement on the surface. Even his approach shots were mostly down the middle which allowed Djokovic to pick his spot and pass him at will, especially with the backhand.
Before the match everyone was harping on about Federer's match up and surface advantage, but when it actually happened it look non-existent really. It really was an amazing feat that he was able to get 5 sets and even have a mini-window where he looked like he might actually pull it off. It's a testament to how well his serve has held up during his decline and how well he still defends despite his diminished movement.
One stat that illustrates where Djokovic was the best yesterday :
65% second serves points won for Djoker vs 44% for Federer, coupled to
92 MPH on average on second serve vs 100 MPH
Federer had superior quality on second serves, but wasn't able to make a difference in the subsequent rallies, whereas Novak was jumping on every occasion he had. He's the best returner of the two so it's not surprising, but that's just not enough for Federer.
As an example, look at the same stat from their 2012 semi-final :
57% second serves points won for Djoko vs 72% for Roger (!), and Novak was serving faster on average.
Pretty much. Djokovic getting more winners on forehand from the baseline than Federer shows that Roger wasn't agressive enough.
65% second serves points won for Djoker vs 44% for Federer, coupled to
92 MPH on average on second serve vs 100 MPH
Federer had superior quality on second serves, but wasn't able to make a difference in the subsequent rallies, whereas Novak was jumping on every occasion he had. He's the best returner of the two so it's not surprising, but that's just not enough for Federer.
As an example, look at the same stat from their 2012 semi-final :
57% second serves points won for Djoko vs 72% for Roger (!), and Novak was serving faster on average.
Pretty much. Djokovic getting more winners on forehand from the baseline than Federer shows that Roger wasn't agressive enough.
Mmmh, stats say that Federer was the better player. I think the key were these crazy Nadal-passing shots
I was thinking the same thing. Tbh If you ask me Federer lost to himself today, not to Djokovic. He pretty much gave it away and handed it to Djokovic on a silvern platter.
Kotetsu534
Member
Those stats show Federer's first serve was godly, his net rushing was somewhat effective, and Djokovic had him everywhere else. Take a look at the 2nd serve % points won.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, I don't see how you can possibly think Federer was the better player in that match. It was a testament to his play that he even managed to make it to five sets, it probably should have finished in the fourth. While Federer's points won on first serve stat initially looks impressive, when you realise that he had 29 aces, you can pretty quickly work out that given Federer was getting so many first serve free points of the aces, in the rallies Djokovic was winning. The second serve points corroborate that - Djokovic's 65% to Federer's 44%. The only reason it was five sets is because Djokovic's break point conversion rate was quite poor - which brings us back to Federer's serve again, which was Federer's only real weapon, if a fantastic one at that.
Far from it. Federer was clearly the inferior player apart from the serve so I find your claim to be pretty ridiculous.
@ Faith: There was also nothing "Nadal" about his passing shots. Nadal's signature passes are his outrageous shots on the dead run. Most of Djokovic's passes were from a relatively stagnant position.
Well you can say that Roger had a few crucial points that he could/should have won (the forehand attack missed in the third set tie-break, the smash leng jai talked about earlier, break points in the second set, break point again in the fifth), but overall, Djokovic was pretty clearly better and had more opportunities to win. It's important to note he had an excellent serve as well, so even if Roger was untouchable on this aspect, Novak wasn't far behind.
Mmmh, stats say that Federer was the better player. I think the key were these crazy Nadal-passing shots
Mmmhm, it was the second serve points won percentage, the stupid net approaches and Djoker consolidating his points at the right moments that made the difference. But yeah, it was an extremely close match. The fifth was on the way to a tiebreak, Federer just kind of gave up on his serve.
edit: guys, before you say Novak was "clearly" the better player, look at the total points won. That's the most telling statistic.
John Dunbar
correct about everything
no tiebreak in the fifth. federer would have constantly had to serve with the pressure of losing the match, much like roddick did in 2009.
deeeerp, had a brain fart there. That's true. His serve was fading away, so the fifth wasn't looking too promising. But it also looked like Djoker was starting to cramp up a little, so Roger might have grinded him out.
Well it WAS a very close match, that's why I think saying things like "Roger only had his serve" is a little bit extreme, because he could have very well won this match. To me he played a very solid grass match, maybe one of the best of his career on serve.
When I say "clearly", I'm refering to this impression I had during the whole match that, despite his solid performance, Roger was the guy who had to hang in there. Djokovic seemed in control and you felt that if Fed's serve declined slightly during one game or another, he would be in trouble. That's why the end of the fourth was so good, because the match's dynamic changed.
I agree with you, the whole match Djokovic was a little bit ahead. But only a little bit.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
Yup.
He did 30 aces. He just needed to keep his serve and I don't know why but something got to him and his service went down the drain. Unforced errors propped up. Honestly after 4th set it seemed he had the momentum and was going to take the 5th set with the near break.
Rafa=FedKilla
Banned
He was never the same after Sjokovic's "injury" timeout in the fifth. It clearly disrupted him. Before, Djokivic look completely beffudled when Federer was in his genius mode.
Sigh. So gutted for him. It's extremely frustrating, he was so close.
You could clearly see that he was injured. He was moving a lot slower than in the previous sets. Didn't expect him to win the 5th set at all.
And Federers momentum was broken before. The injury timeout was after the 3rd game (2:1 Djokovic).
m_shortpants
Member
At the beginning of the 5th he looked like he would win for sure. Not sure what exactly happened in his last two service games.
Certinty
Member
The match was always in Djokovic's hands, besides every now and then Federer was pretty content with rallying instead of playing the aggressive brand of tennis we know him for.
In the first set rallying worked for Federer though as quite a few times Djokovic missed out of no where when the rallies got extended. That sort of changed in the next few sets where once Djokovic cut out the errors was the one in control until 5-2 in the fourth. Then of course him getting tight as well as Federer taking advantage of this led to it going to a fifth.
The match shouldn't have even gone into a fifth, but since it did it only made the loss worse for Federer. Up until Djokovic saved a break point and held for 4-3, it felt as if Federer was the one in control, Djokovic wasn't moving great and Federer was holding relatively comfortably. I reckon if Federer decided to take it on in the beginning of the fifth the outcome could have been different, the longer he let Djokovic stay ahead in the fifth the more Djokovic grew in confidence, had Federer managed an early break that set it could have ended up a routine set for him I reckon.
In the first set rallying worked for Federer though as quite a few times Djokovic missed out of no where when the rallies got extended. That sort of changed in the next few sets where once Djokovic cut out the errors was the one in control until 5-2 in the fourth. Then of course him getting tight as well as Federer taking advantage of this led to it going to a fifth.
The match shouldn't have even gone into a fifth, but since it did it only made the loss worse for Federer. Up until Djokovic saved a break point and held for 4-3, it felt as if Federer was the one in control, Djokovic wasn't moving great and Federer was holding relatively comfortably. I reckon if Federer decided to take it on in the beginning of the fifth the outcome could have been different, the longer he let Djokovic stay ahead in the fifth the more Djokovic grew in confidence, had Federer managed an early break that set it could have ended up a routine set for him I reckon.
perfectchaos007
Member
2012- S. Williams
2013- Bartoli
2014- Kvitova
Is it any coincidence the 3 players most criticized for being on the pudgy side at various points in their career have won the last 3 wimbledons? I'm calling it now, Taylor Townsend will win in 2015
- Status