*Official* Tennis Thread

[Uppercut]

LOL @ comparing FC cricket to Masters Shields. Sachin Tendulkar doesn't throw his bat in anger when he gets out in a first class match.

The Masters Cup (where the best 8 players of the year face off) isn't a 'minor' tournament. Neither is any 1000 Masters Shield tournament tbf, but if you're going to classify those as minor, fair enough. But the Masters Cup isn't. Hence why Federer dominated that tournament for so long.

Its also important to remember that Murray was sick during his loss at the Aust Open. He may have lost to Verdasco anyway, who was playing awesome, but Murray was playing a good tournament until that match.

We'll see at Wimbledon how Murray goes when the pressure is completely on him.

I'm sure Sachin does get pretty angry when he gets out in a first-class match, but that's besides the point.

The Masters is a competitive tournament, but it's not in the same league as the Slams. You're comparing someone who's never won one to someone who's won 13. And yes, Murray was sick when he was playing Verdasco (not that i think it mattered- Verdasco's performance in that match would have taken out anyone IMO) but he was perfectly fine for all the others that he also failed to get as far as Roger in. I'm not having this Federer decline crap. He's not the undisputed world's best anymore, but getting to the final of his previous four slams and winning one? It's being majorly overplayed.

The man might not have it in him to compete constantly on every ATP event but when it really matters he has what it takes to step up.

 

[Jono]

Everything you say about Roger there is right.

But why are you comparing Murray pre-July 2008 to the current Murray? What does Murray's Aust Open in 08 have to do with him now? He's clearly a fitter and far improved player.

 

[Uppercut]

Everything you say about Roger there is right.

But why are you comparing Murray pre-July 2008 to the current Murray? What does Murray's Aust Open in 08 have to do with him now? He's clearly a fitter and far improved player.

As i say- i'm quite a fan of Murray, and he's much improved of late- but there's no way he's done enough to say he's as good as Federer. Which was what i initially started ranting about in response to Anil.

 

[ohtani's jacket]

Jeez, I'd say Murray is just a little bit better than Federer right now. Federer can't even beat the guy!

 

[Anil]

Federer is quite clearly better than Djokovic, and i'd have him over Murray every single time.

i am talking about current form....and i am sure you had him over murray in each of their last 4(?) meetings which he lost...i am not saying murray is overall a better player but that he is playing much better than federer right now...

 

[Anil]

As i say- i'm quite a fan of Murray, and he's much improved of late- but there's no way he's done enough to say he's as good as Federer. Which was what i initially started ranting about in response to Anil.

which is not what i said...

 

[luckyeddie]

It might be relevant to compare the two players by age and relevant experience - for instance, Roger Federer (b 8/8/81) v Andrew Murray (b 15/5/87). Now I make that approximately 6 years difference between them, so we ought to compare the end of 2008 Murray v the end of 2002 Federer, if you think that's fair.

Murray - highest world ranking 4
Federer - highest world ranking 6

Murray - end of year world ranking 4
Federer - end of year world ranking 13

Murray - career slam victories - 0
Federer - career slam victories - 0

Murray - career slam finals - 1
Federer - career slam finals - 0

Murray - career masters victories - 3
Federer - career masters victories - 1

Murray - career masters finals - 4
Federer - career masters finals - 2

I think it's difficult to draw any conclusion apart from the fact that Andrew Murray is slightly better than Roger Federer was at the same age.

 

[Simon]

I think its worth noting that Federer was never an exception junior or anything. He was consistently owned by guys liek Gonzalez, Hewitt and even Luis Horna and never reached great heights until the break through at Wimbledon. Murray is a good player but there arent a lot of players banging down the door at the moment from outside the top 5, in 2002 there was a lot more depth at the top.

 

[luckyeddie]

I think its worth noting that Federer was never an exception junior or anything. He was consistently owned by guys liek Gonzalez, Hewitt and even Luis Horna and never reached great heights until the break through at Wimbledon. Murray is a good player but there arent a lot of players banging down the door at the moment from outside the top 5, in 2002 there was a lot more depth at the top.

Always difficult to compare between eras - and in tennis, 6 years is pretty well an era - especially when you are talking about the surfaces and tournaments that Federer has dominated.

Anyway, I don't know enough about the sport to put together any sort of convincing argument. It just might be that Podgorny is the best Brit for 70 years - or he just might go the way of Posh Tim and the Canadian. I don't feel qualified to even guess. The missus likes him though, so I end up having to watch the bloody sport.

 

[Jono]

I think its worth noting that Federer was never an exception junior or anything. He was consistently owned by guys liek Gonzalez, Hewitt and even Luis Horna and never reached great heights until the break through at Wimbledon. Murray is a good player but there arent a lot of players banging down the door at the moment from outside the top 5, in 2002 there was a lot more depth at the top.

Really? Who was around in 2002 from 5-15 that is better than the current top 15. Not saying you're wrong, just trying to jog my memory.

All true regarding Fed as a youngster though.

 

[Simon]

On April 8th 2002 the top 20 was
1 Lleyton Hewitt
2 Gustarvo Kuerten
3 Juan Carlos Ferrero
4 Yevgeny Kafelnikov
5 Tim Henman
6 Tommy Haas
7 Marat Safin
8 Sebastien Grosjean
9 Thomas Johansson
10 Andre Agassi
11 Roger Federer
12 Pat Rafter
13 Andy Roddick
14 Pete Sampras
15 Jiri Novak
16 Goran Ivansevic
17 Guillermo Canas
18 Alex Corretja
19 Thomas Enqvist
20 Younes El Yanoui

13 of those 20 players were/have been grand slam winners with every other one except for 20th placed El Yanoui making it to at least one grand slam semi final. There were also guys like Albert Costa, Carlos Moya and Marcelo Rios in the 20-30 range who were also slam winners. I think this period was comfortably stronger than it is now.

Outside of perhaps Tsonga, Del Porto, Cillic and Murray you wouldnt think there are many guys around at the moment capable of winning a slam that already havent.

 

[superkingdave]

2002 might well be stronger, but I don't see what the amount of slam winners tells us massively with two guys like Federer and Nadal hanging around that all but have every slam locked down.

If you didn't have them playing over the past few years, there'd be a lot more of the top 20 running around with slams, but the standard would not be better.

 

[Simon]

Maybe so, but when two of the guys in that list (Sampras and Agassi) were pretty dominant in that time. The point I'm making is that guys like Thomas Johannson and even Sampras who was ranked in the mid teens around that time were capable of winning slams. Gaudio won the french ranked in the 50's, Goran won wimbledon ranked 125th.
I just think that going into a slam in mens tennis in pretty much any other time but now there were more chances to win it. Now theres four clear cut favourites and thats probably at every slam too.

 

[Pothas]

Yes but how many of those twenty players outside Agassi and Samprass could you see beating Federer and Nadal on a regular basis? Not all that many I would think.

 

[Simon]

The likes of Rafter, Kafelnikov, Safin and Ferrero were all capable of beating Sampras and Agassi on their day. These days it takes the top players to have a bad day to lose to anyone outside the top 4. Even guys like Blake, Tsonga, Davydenko etc... can play as well as they like but if the top guys are playing well then they will win.

 

[Anil]

The likes of Rafter, Kafelnikov, Safin and Ferrero were all capable of beating Sampras and Agassi on their day. These days it takes the top players to have a bad day to lose to anyone outside the top 4. Even guys like Blake, Tsonga, Davydenko etc... can play as well as they like but if the top guys are playing well then they will win.

depends on the surface, kafelnikov might beat sampras and even agassi on clay(on his day) but if both parties are playing well, there is no chance that he would beat either of them on hard courts or grass...similar is the case of ferrero...rafter and safin at their best, yes there could have beaten these guys, not sure though on a regular basis...

 

[Pothas]

Hmmm but none of them could have beaten Sampras at his best on grass just as I would argue that none of them would be capable of beating Nadal on clay or Federer on grass. I think that the period in question was one where there were no true greats operating at the peak of their powers rather lots of good/ very good players at the same time. Today we have a situation where two of the all time greats are at their very best and as a result the rest of the field apear to be of inferior quality. Would use Andy Roddick as an example of the sort of player who would have propsered far better back in the early 2000's time than right now.

 

[Jono]

^ Yup

The fact that Roddick won a Slam in 2003, yet hasn't looked like winning a tournament in the last 3 years, despite being a far better player right now than he was back in 2003, exemplifies this.

 

[Mister Wright]

Hewitt wins first clay court tournament in something like 10 years and first tournament in two years.

 

[SirBloody Idiot]

And Juan-Carlos Ferrero wins his first in five .

Hewitt was pretty ****ing horrible today, though, and had the easiest run after no seeds made it to the quarters. Was up 3-0 in the second and dropped five on the trot; but Odesnik is a spud and lost the plot. He's got a horror draw in Monte Carlo and will be lucky to make it anywhere near Nadal in the third (with Safin and Stepanek to start things off).