GRcade

Querrey and Cilic should just do a best-of-five tie-breaks and spare us all the tedium.

Poncho wrote:Querrey and Cilic should just do a best-of-five tie-breaks and spare us all the tedium.

I don't know what you're talking about. This beautiful display of elegant grasscourt serve-and-volley tennis is what the sport is really about, why it takes me back to the golden days of Pete Sampras when a long rally was anything over 3 shots and if somebody was about to break serve you'd call your grandkids in to the living room so they could witness the magical moment.

Pancake wrote:How come you both hate Federer so much? Just bored of him winning?

He is lauded as the greatest Tennis player of all time but has won relatively little in terms of grand slams since around 2009 when Murray, Nadal and Djokovic started to hit their prime. Almost all of Federer's slam wins were in an era when he faced relatively weak competition and whilst I appreciate you can only beat what's in front of you, I think if he really was the greatest he ought to have won more in what's arguably the greatest era of male Tennis in history.

That and I just cannot stick how smug and smarmy he is.

Don't get me wrong, he's absolutely one of the greatest ever but I'd have Nadal and potentially Djokovic ahead of him.

Hm. He is older than those three so has always been in a slightly different phase of his career, impossible to say how he would have compared if they were all peaking at same time. Besides, you could find similar arguments against the others: Djokovic started dominating only when Federer and Nadal started to decline; Nadal is amazing on clay but not so much on other surfaces, given that he has only won 5 slams outside of RG (and 3 since 2009, same as Federer); Murray has only won three slams total, same as Federer since 2009.

If you include 2009 he's won 5 slams and contested 11 finals. In that same time Nadal has won 10 contesting 14 finals I think and Djoko 11 contesting 15? So they compare favourably with him in that respect. I've always thought that Nadal's are a bit skewed as his game is so naturally suited to the clay. I'd say Nadal is clearly the greatest ever clay court player but he hasn't been that great across the other surfaces relatively speaking. Both Nadal and Federer have had lengthier breaks due to injury.

The 2009 cut off is quite arbitrary too, given that Nadal won his first slam in 2005 and Djokovic in 2008.

Djokovic won his first slam and came of age in 2008. Nadal didn't really become an all court threat until 2008/2009. Also, as I said, that's when they started coming into their prime. Federer was only about 27 then and thus ought to have won more, IMO.

Nadal has only won 4 slams since turning 27 (edit: 3 of which at RG).

2009 fits the narrative you want because that's when Nadal peaked but Nadal was only 23 then.

Pancake wrote:Nadal has only won 4 slams since turning 27.

Proof that the drugs don't work, they just make you worse, but I know i'll see your face again.

Come on Berdych!

Pancake wrote:Nadal has only won 4 slams since turning 27 (edit: 3 of which at RG).

2009 fits the narrative you want because that's when Nadal peaked but Nadal was only 23 then.

What are you talking about? Federer was bang in the middle of his prime in 2009. Since then Rafa has won 9 slams in comparison in that time period. And he's had to do it against far tougher competition.

I want Feds to win just to annoy Drummy.

Denster wrote:I want Feds to win just to annoy Drummy.

It's like hoping for water to be wet, or the sun to rise tomorrow; they just don't need it.

Thing is, if Federer wins this one at this stage of his career he's surely the greatest.

Drumstick wrote:

Pancake wrote:Nadal has only won 4 slams since turning 27 (edit: 3 of which at RG).

2009 fits the narrative you want because that's when Nadal peaked but Nadal was only 23 then.

What are you talking about? Federer was bang in the middle of his prime in 2009. Since then Rafa has won 9 slams in comparison in that time period. And he's had to do it against far tougher competition.

I don't think I'm saying anything stupid here, I'm trying to be reasonable.

You've said Federer was in his prime at the age of 27 (in 2009) but has only won 3 slams since, which is a poor record. I'm pointing out that Nadal's record since turning 27 (2013) is not much better. The point being that both were far more successful when they were younger but there is an age gap so they were never in their best phases at the same time. It seems odd that you would hold this against one and not the other.

There is no denying that Nadal came along and, after a few years (2005-2008) of being second best, became the dominant player in the sport and superior to Federer. Then Djokovic came along and became the dominant player in the sport and superior to Nadal. Now Federer is probably the best of the three again.

DML wrote:Thing is, if Federer wins this one at this stage of his career he's surely the greatest.

Kind of a weak draw here, but wasn't that already settled in Australia?

[instagram][/instagram]

Tineash wrote:

DML wrote:Thing is, if Federer wins this one at this stage of his career he's surely the greatest.

Kind of a weak draw here, but wasn't that already settled in Australia?

Winning Wimbledon will always be a bigger deal.

A slam is a slam. Far more impressive to triumph over his bete noire in 5 sets, than to cream a succession of halfwits and mediocrities.

Is there ever a more serial quarter-finalist/semi-finalist-but-nothing-more than Tomas Berdych?

He fits in neatly with the other 'nearly men' - Tsonga, Ferrer, & Soderling.

And future 'nearlies' - Raonic & Nishikori.