Its good to see for a rafa fan that you picked rafa to prevail over an inform federer in the round robin.But if rafa can beat federer on this surface, i dont think he will have any problems with tsonga. And if rafa is able to display such a form there is no way he can lose in the semis. But winning the title will depend on the amount of the effort he has to put in for the semis cos last year we saw how the duration of the semi final hampered his performance in the final: in the the third set he dint show up.

Federer is a good matchup for Nadal.

Beating Federer does not at all mean that Nadal is ready to win the whole thing.

Does he have a chance? Sure.

Well, Federer is maybe good for Nadal to play on clay, but Fed is by far leading their H2H on hard indoor courts. So, I would not be too sure that Nadal would be able to beat Roger and I surely don't hope so. I mean, Nadal didn't play a match for weeks! I definitely hope Roger would win another time, and I will surely not believe any stories about Nadal's shoulders or whatsoever.

Let me begin by saying my predictions are based on the premise that both Fish and Nole are not healthy and both could actually pull at any time during the tournament or possibly before it starts.

Group A
Berdych over Djokovic in 3
Murray over Ferrer in 2
Murray over Berdych in 3
Djokovic over Ferrer in 2
Murray over Djokovic in 3
Berdych over Ferrer in 2

Group B
Nadal over Fish in 2
Federer over Tsonga in 2
Federer over Nadal in 2
Tsonga over Fish in 2
Tsonga over Nadal in 3
Federer over Fish in 2


Semifinal Federer over Berdych in 2, Murray over Tsonga in 3

Final Federer over Murray in 2

I think its wishful thinking to believe that Federer shall take Nadal out in 2.
To say the least, based on what?
But it doesnt mean that roger cannot progress further in the tournament.
Also if Andy turns up a simple straight sets win should be unlikely as well.
I mean it `feels` more like a masters tournament than a slam after all ;-)

My feeling is Djokovic will compete at a weaker level, still enough to come 2nd behind Murray. I think Nadal will beat Federer in 3 sets in the round-robin. (remember Nadal owned Fed in their Indian Wells hard court semifinal after the AO). Nadal then finishes first and plays Djokovic (and beats him since his shoulder is gone, otherwise Djokovic would defeat him straightforwardly). Whoever survives a Murray-Fed clash would probably be so exhausted that Nadal will win. I hope Fed wins, but I just think Nadal is rested and full of motivation to win this thing for the first time. A healthy Djokovic is the only guy who can consistently expose Nadal's weaknesses. The only way Fed can beat Nadal is by hitting 50 forehand winners (which happens once in a while, but it doesn't work in the long run).
I hope Numero's right with his predictions though...

Sosueme,

I agree that it is wishful thinking, but that's to be expected. I don't like to make predictions until I see them play. I don't know how Rafa is going to look, what his form will be. Usually when he takes time off, he has to work his way back to his best form. This format precludes that, so it will be a challenge. He should be fresh and rested, but will he be match ready? That is what I have to wait and see.

Predictions are fun, but they have no meaning as to the outcome. After I see Rafa play, then I may come on and give my feelings as to how well I think he will do. I also want to see how Nole looks. Murray was looking good until he ran up against Berdy. I do expect Murray to have a shot at winning this title. I think he really wants this one.

Oh, one more thing. I forgot to thank Ricky for breaking it all down, the upset alerts and the RR predictions by group!

Much appreciated! :)

I agree & he is my 2nd (provisional favourite) `head wise`. He's got a great chance if he is determined er `headwise`.
As for this tournament `precluding` working your way into from, I have to disagree.
You don't get eliminated immediately in the RR (in fact, stats wise you could even lose 2 matches & still progress based on sets games etc).
Rafa looked ROPEY last year & but by the time he met Murray in the semis what did we get?
Only one of the based 3 setters of the decade. Perhaps ever!
So there's reason to be hopeful.

Sosueme,

I understand that you don't get eliminated immediately, so a loss in Rafa's first match won't mean the end. However, what I was trying to say is that you don't face lower ranked players that you can beat if you are not in good form. I have seen Rafa work his way into form in slams quite often. This is not that kind of tournament.

I do think you made a good point about how it all gets tabulated and how matches, sets and games are taken into account.

As far as how Rafa looked when he met Murray in the semis, well he did lose that second set with two breaks of serve. I believe he won the first set in a tiebreak. I had that on my dvr for a long time and watched it over and over. That third set was something else! Rafa should have lost the tiebreak, but he did his Houdini magni and pulled out the win. I don't know that Murray is going to let him get away with that again!

I am not lacking in hope for Rafa. I never, ever write him off. He is too fierce a competitor. I just don't know what to expect. He is one player who gets better the more he plays, but he looked mentally fatigued during the Asian swing.

Fish as his first match is good. That is about the best he could have hoped for. I wish it was starting already!

I don't know what happened in my last post, but I meant to say Houdini magic! I don't know where I got magni! :)

NNY we all knew what you meant lol. We've all done it too and gone darn it, where's the edit button! I've got butterflies in my stomach already btw. Wish Andy would stop doing this to me..;)

deuce,

But you know you love it! You are going to see the matches, aren't you? So you can see your guy up close in person! Lucky you!

I am getting very excited the closer it gets. The time of Rafa's first match is perfect, too! He will be playing at night British time, so I get to see him at 12:00 noon. It seems like forever since I last saw him.

You should feel good, because Andy will be getting great support from the hometown fans. What I love about the British fans, is how generous they are. They love Rafa, too. They really like everyone. :)

If Berdy can beat Djoker, he will surely beat ferrer.
Fed vs Berdy
Raf vs Murray

Tsonga talking big and tough :-)

Murray will not get the chance to avenge last year's semi-final loss to Rafael Nadal at the ATP World Tour Finals, according to a confident Jo-Wilfried Tsonga.

Murray was kept apart from former world No. 1 Nadal during Tuesday's group stage draw, meaning he can meet the Spaniard in the last four. The Brit was beaten in a classic by Nadal at the same stage 12 months ago.

In order to reach the knockout rounds this time, Murray will need to finish in the top two of a group featuring Novak Djokovic, Tomas Berdych and David Ferrer. Based purely on world rankings, Murray would then face either Roger Federer or Nadal in the last four, but that is not the way Tsonga sees things going.

"Obviously it couldn't be an easy draw but it's a very good group for me," the Frenchman said. "I'll be playing against Roger once again (to whom he recently lost in the final of the BNP Paribas Masters).

"I'll play Rafa on a surface that suits me really well and I'll be expecting to beat Mardy Fish.

"Having played there three years ago will help me, because I won't be looking around telling myself: 'Oh, it's great to be here.' I'm not going there just to participate."

sanju,

It's great that Tsonga is feeling so good about his chances, but I have always believed that talk is cheap. He can say what he wants and act like it's a done deal, but as Rafa has said in the past, it's what happens on the court that counts. Tsonga will have to bring his best game if he expects to be in the semis.

I hope Jo is right since I predicted him meeting Murray in the semi as well.

Two issues for Rafa to be a serious contender. 1. Hasn't played (I don't think he ever does well 1st tournament after a lay-off). 2. Indoor fast court (weakest surface).

Even though a different surface, he'll be using this to get some pre-DC matches in to get in game shape and also to try a few different things agains Nole (should Rafa get that far).

Even though he did so many Masters and GS finals in 2011, Rafa will have an even better 2012!!!

Fed is indoor king and will win WTF again this year based on his indoor form at Basel and Paris.

Should read "Two issues stand in the way for Rafa to..." (Where is the Edit button!)

murray is clear favorite to win this event Federer and nadal have an outside chance of winning and Djokovic is not 100% fit

^^^Comedian?

I hope Jo is right since I predicted him meeting Murray in the semi as well.

numero, 11/16/11 3:44 PM

Needless to say, I hope you are wrong.

^^^Understandable. ;)

Incidentally if my prediction were wrong my second choice would be for Roger to beat Rafa again in the final. I'm sure you wouldn't like that scenario either but it is a possibility.

^^^

I certainly would say it's a possibility. After all, it happened last year didn't it?

What I really meant was for Roger to go 2-0 against Rafa in one tournament. The h2h needs all the help it can get at this point lol.

I'm struggling to find reasons for why any one of Ricky's predictions would be wrong, but I can't. Still have a hunch that Rafa might win it, but that hunch isn't founded on any logic whatsoever. The most likely scenarios that will differ from Ricky's predictions are:

Djokovic beating Berdych
Nadal beating Tsonga, which messes up everything since it would then mean a Nadal vs Djokovic semi
Murray beating Federer

Fedfans say the H2H is not important so what would it matter if Rafa increases his lead over Roger to 18-8?

numero, 11/15/11 10:07 PM

I'm interested to know the basis for your prediction of mostly straight set wins this year.

I know last year there were only 4 three-setters played. The year before the figure was 18 - and that was in spite of Rafa's three consecutive straight set losses ;-((

I may have mis-counted. Correct me if I'm wrong ;-)

Roger tends to have some drops in his level of play during a match. This is due to his age I think.

Look at the match against Nieminen in Basel or against Tsonga in Paris. He played a great 1st set but dropped his level in the 2nd set. Against the top players a drop in level will probably cost you a set. So I don't really see Roger winning all matches in straight sets, especially against the top 4. But what matters is the outcome and should Roger win I'll be happy.

Is it not 18-7 now?

No. It's 17-8.

I'm sure true FedFans would agree that Roger increasing his indoor record vs Rafa from 3-0 to 5-0 shouldn't matter to h2h using the same 'logic' that Rafa's clay wins over Roger shouldn't count in h2h! :)

The H2H results from the outcomes of the matches played between 2 players.

It is what it is. For me it hasn't any value when evaluating a player's career. Some people think it is very relevant.

It is only relevant when evaluating the confrontation of any 2 players.

agreed with bleck

unless Nadal was leading like......25-0....then it would be pretty hard to consider Federer the GOAT. But 17-8 or even 20-5 doesnt mean too much other than "evaluating the confrontation of any 2 players."

While in my heart I would tend to agree, my head says that Sampras', Borg's or Laver's contention for GOAT would pretty much be non-existent if one of their respective contemporaries had more than double the wins h2h (with, say, more than 10 matches played) and, more significantly, had beaten them on every surface in a Grand Slam.

So, for me, it is a struggle but I still would give the slight nod to Federer as GOAT so far. However, such a dominant h2h still has to at least be considered and cannot be readily dismissed.

Conspirator, All the H2H talk affecting the GOAT discussion is nonsensical.
Had Federer been like Sampras and not reached all those clay finals he would have a much more balanced H2H and 15 slam titles. Would that hypothetical Federer be in a better position for GOAT status than the current one?

If Federer was as bad a clay courter as sampras he wouldn't have lost to nadal 5 times in RG (4 of those finals) plus 9 times in masters 1000 clay finals (7-2 in favour of nadal). The H2H would be 5-6, but we can agree that they would've met a couple of times on clay so the H2H could be something like 8-6,9-6,10-6.

That's why the H2H theory makes no sense. According to that "theory" had Federer been a worst player on clay he would be better placed in the GOAT discussion. Nonsensical.

Bleck, fair enough, and, as I said, I'd still pick Fed for GOAT... BUT, for me (an important qualifier), I don't dismiss h2h (i.e., Fed would me a much more obvious choice with a better h2h). For example, forgetting clay altogether, who beat Sampras at a Slam on both Grass and Hard Court?

Again, still, slight nod to Fed overall (with h2h considered)! And, bleck, appreciate your insights.

BTW, some find the whole GOAT debate silly but it's interesting to me and you and I still agree on Fed at the end of the day.

Federer has not beaten Nadal in a hard court slam. Hasn't done it at the French. Nadal on the other hand has beaten Federer on three different surfaces at slams. To me, that is telling. H2H cannot be dismissed just like that, especially in an era where the surfaces are so much more homogenous. I'd still agree with the consensus that Federer is arguably the greatest player of all time; even though evaluating who's GOAT is impossible because of certain factors you just can't measure - e.g., opponents, surfaces, technology.

On one hand people say H2H doesn't matter and shouldn't matter..on the other hand Fedfans want Fed to beat Rafa twice in the WTF (once at RR and then finals) to improve his H2H record against Rafa..well to me both statements together cant be justified :-)

Lets accept it that to all of us H2H does cut ice ,whatever we try to say to the contrary , and its not just with us posters, it has lot of weightage and cuts ice with even experts of the game.

And yes if Fed had a poor H2H against Rafa, tomm if Rafa has a poor H2H against Nole too, it will be a blemish on his career too and will always stick out like a sore thumb. The same rule applies to all. Lets be fair and consistent when discussing irrespective of our loyalties.

And yes I too dont think there is anything called GOAT, there can only be a GOAT when you have all tangibles and intangibles similar across eras which is never the case anyway. We can only have 'greatest players', great players, good players, also rans, bad players :-)

I can already hear the Fed fans saying - but it's because Rafa hasn't gotten to as many hard court slam finals as Fed. So Fed didn't have as many opportunities to beat him. At least that is their thinking. I know the argument by heart, because I have heard it so often.

For myself, I am just happy that Rafa has the advantage in the H2H with Fed. I think it says a lot, considering that he also had to play Fed when he was at his very best.

I said it before, but it bears repeating. I do not believe in this whole GOAT argument. It is flawed in concept. There can never be one GOAT in the sport of tennis. Rod Laver has said that you can only be the greatest in your era. He should know, for if there ever was to be a GOAT, he is the closest thing to it.

Well guys lets face it..Rafa lost in 2 semis at USO in 08 & 09 when Fed was in the final and Fed lost in 2 semis at USO in 10,11 when Rafa was in the final ..so they both denied each other the chance to play each other at USO final and give us hopefully a memorable USO final..

I honestly think in 2010, no one would ahve beaten Rafa in USO final..Fed included..in 2011 I sincerely believe Rafa would have beaten Fed in the final without a doubt

In 2009 I would give Fed the clear advantage to beat Rafa in the final had they met

2008 is a toss up - Rafa was tired , Fed already suffered 2 GS losses at RG & Wimby to Rafa, so would have played on his mind..cant call that one..

Aaaaah, suddenly you're "Goating" again. I'm playing my deviation card and sending you all, "Monopololy" style, to gaol!

Can't we wait and judge their careers when they've both decided to quit?
Federer has done extraordinary things and holds records that Nadal will probably never touch and vice versa. Both will be Hall of Famers and both will be remembered for being a great ambassador for the game. They've both added something to the game... Federer for showing his beautifull artistic game and Nadal for his will, tenacy and mental strength :-) Of course Nadal makes beautifull points and Federer also has a will to win and so on.

I'm a Fed-fan because I love the way he plays tennis, but I appreciate the time that these great players are still playing! Because I love the game and I won't stop watching tennis, when Federer quits. Every era has his heroes.... it's just that these guys are exceptional :-) And everybody wants their hero to win, just as I like Federer to win every match. Sad thing, it's just not possible...

First of all let's hope this doesn´t get in an endless discussion.

As I said in a post above the H2H being a factor in the GOAE (greatest of an era, lol) or GOAT discussion is flawed.

They played 14 times on clay out of 25 times, that's more than half.

"If Federer was as bad a clay courter as sampras he wouldn't have lost to nadal 5 times in RG (4 of those finals) plus 7 times in masters 1000 clay finals (7-2 in favour of nadal). The H2H would be 5-6, but we can agree that they would've met a couple of times on clay so the H2H could be something like 8-6,9-6,10-6.

That's why the H2H theory makes no sense. According to that "theory" had Federer been a worst player on clay he would be better placed in the GOAT discussion. Nonsensical."

Also, "The H2H results from the outcomes of the matches played between 2 players.

It is what it is. For me it hasn't any value when evaluating a player's career. Some people think it is very relevant.

It is only relevant when evaluating the confrontation of any 2 players."

Ricky approved!!!! lol

unless Nadal was leading like......25-0....then it would be pretty hard to consider Federer the GOAT. But 17-8 or even 20-5 doesnt mean too much other than "evaluating the confrontation of any 2 players."
RickyDimon, 11/17/11 4:12 PM

Absolute rubbish! If the H2H lay 20-5 in nadal's favour there would be no argument whatsoever for Federer as the GOAT.

So why is Federer considered the GOAT at all because he doesn't have a 25-0 h2h over anyone. He is not the greatest on clay of any era and holds fewer Masters titles than Rafa, so what makes him the 'GOAT' if someone must be the GOAT? (An accolade that I do not believe in myself).

Is being the GOAT just down to the number of slam titles?

"Is being the GOAT just down to the number of slam titles?"

Pretty much. But I would also add the number weeks at #1 and maybe also slams finals and # titles. But the GS titles is the most important aspect of a player's career.

A GS tournament is the ultimate challenge. Those are the tournaments everyone wants to win. Do you see nadal or federer or djokovic skip slams because they want to rest?! They do that with masters 1000.

For me 10 slams is better than 9 slams and 10 masters 1000.

^^^^For you!

For me and for a whole lot of other people. While I easily expect the majority of nadal fans won't agree. Given that nadal "only" has 10 GS but has 19 masters 1000. lol

Bleck it is GOAT v. GOAD. not GOAT v. GOAE lol.

The world is divided into those who find this subject deeply fascinating (all Federer Fans) and those who yawn when it crops up (fans of all other players).

For anyone who does care, there is a blog written some time ago by someone called Clay King who used to be very present here but has since disappeared without trace, which might be of interest.

http://stat-attack.blogspot.com/2010/07/if-not-goat-how-a bout-goads_06.html

Deuce: The GOAT argument is always good for a bit of GOADing.

If it weren't for the fact we'd be going off topic we could start a GLOAT discussion Lots of scope for gloating there.

"The world is divided into those who find this subject deeply fascinating (all Federer Fans) and those who yawn when it crops up (fans of all other players)."

That's pretty obvious because there can only be one GOAT. And Roger is the GOAT, for the time being.

Exactly Bleck. But we talking GOAD not GOAT.

GOAT includes GOAD ;)

And Roger is the GOAT.

Stop goading me Bleck :-P

For the record, I'm a big (but hopefully objective?) Rafa fan and am deaply interested in the discussion. Fed, to me, is the GOAT to date. We'll revisit in five years, no? I still even put Sampras over Rafa (to date). Pete made the semis at FO and might have won it if RG played as fast as it did in '09. ;)

Absolutely love Roger's talent but not so much his off court snide remarks...

"I'm not taking anything away from [Murray's success in] Asia, but was Asia the strongest this year?" Federer, to the Independent.

(no weaker than Basel and Paris when all said and done)

While true, why even say it? These words would never be spoken by Pete or Rafa.

Pete and Rafa were much more respectful and let their racquets do the smack talk. ;)

Conspirator, Why mention RG in 2009 and not 2008 0r 2010. Sampras would only have won RG if he had been very lucky. Roger on the other hand would have won multiple RG if he didn't play in the same era as the clay GOAT. So on the clay department Roger is in front by a long margin.

On the grass department sampras is ahead given he has one more Wimbledon that Roger.

"We'll revisit in five years, no?" Do you really think Djokovic will be able to win 3 or 2 slams a year for the next 5 years and threaten Roger's GS record?
Or were you talking about another player? ;)
It's just that I don't see any other player getting closer to Roger given djokovic's domination.

there are more factors than just GS titles, and there are also more factors WITHIN the category of GS titles

for example

15 Wimbledon titles and nothing else is not as a good as, say,

4 French Opens, 3 Wimbledons, 3 Australians, and 2 US Opens

Yes Ricky. Completing the career slam should have added value as well as winning in 3 or 2 different surfaces.

But masters 1000 titles, really, who cares. Top players skip masters when they want to rest or sort out minor injuries. They obviously don't do that in slams.


I'm sure murray would trade 4,5,6 all of his masters 1000 for a slam.

Bleck, of course I meant Nole, who else, no?

However, tennis winds change quickly. Rafa was in Nole's shoes 12 months ago having won three slams to go along with three "meaningless" masters 1000.

Nole's had arguably the best year ever but as JWS pointed out, it was just one year.

And since you mention "luck", there are different flavours of luck that can enable a French Open win. Champions make their own luck if given the right opportunity and conditions such as court speed or competitor health for example. Federer, is such a Champion who took advantage of both in '09. He should thank the homogenization of court speeds.

BTW, number of Slams is a very important factor but not the only one. One has to consider the competitiveness of the field also.

This is why I give my slight nod to Fed as he is still playing amazing tennis at 30 which Pete was unable to sustain.

It is still premature to consider Rafa for GOAT and unfair to judge his accomplishments against Fed due to the relative stages of their respective careers.

I'm done on this for a while. While I like the debate, it is only subjective by its very nature and I've gotten my fix for now. Again, bleck, overall, we agree on the GOAT. Definitely gets my vote for SOAT. Does anyone know if Smuggest is a word?

Peace out.

bleck, please don't write Andy off yet.

deuce, I'm not. Just said that to try and prove my point that slams are in a completely different league than the masters 1000.

bleck,Robbie koenic( can't spell) and Jason Goodhall, were chatting and one said, think it was Koenic, in his opinion Masters 1000 were more difficult to win than slams.
How's that for a bit of controversy?

No comment. (Ooops, I just did!) ;)

deuce, And mcenroe said nadal's volleys are better than federer's and a lot of so called "tennis experts" have been predicting murray to win a slam for the past 3 years (even picking him as favourite for a couple of them).

If anyone here on TT really believes that we can discuss it. Since Koenig doesn't post on TT I can't discuss it with him.

But that's obviously one of the biggest stupidities I have ever read.

I can tell you 1 thing ifslams where secondaire tomasters titles... Roger would have had over 45 masters titles (probably more) . So it is stupid to assume masters are more difficult because the players are getting ready to peak in the slams and use the masters to get into shape. Or they skip the masters to get ready for the slams.j

well Masters are VERY important, just not crucial

I would rather have 18 slams and 14 Masters than 20 slams and 0 Masters

I would rather have 16 slams, 5 WTF and 18 masters, and I´ll tke pleasure at doubles gold.

it is just a non discussion, They work there way around and through the masters to get topfit at the slams and if you may have noticed WTF. Skipping masters 1000 for WTF. Abondoning the tounement just to beready for WTF.
Why would it be harder to win a masters then a slam. They sacrifice there litle pinky or maybe more for a slam. They will sacrifice notting for a masters 1000 especially when there is a slam at stake.
And it is impössible to win 20 slams and 0 masters because it is much easier to win masters and more then twice as many chances.

i think it does not matter much that which one is hard to win but main thing which one is more important and imo there wouldn't be multiple opinions about it!!

bleck's comment @ 11/18/11 2.58PM

I find it a bit contradictory when you mentioned that with Nole's dominance, no one would get near to Fed's no.of slams, and yet you doubt that Nole can get two to three slams a year for the next five years. So no two or three slams a year for the next five years and yet he is dominating?? How?? If Nole is winning two to three slams a year for the next two years only but not after, then most likely he won't be dominant, and that may mean the next batch of youngsters are ready to win slams, so how do we know that one of them won't get to win more than 16 slams in the future, when the so called 'fab four' have all grown old or older?

Robbie koenic( can't spell) and Jason Goodhall, were chatting and one said, think it was Koenic, in his opinion Masters 1000 were more difficult to win than slams.
How's that for a bit of controversy?
deuce
, 11/18/11 5:16 PM


deuce, .........and Robbie Koenig explained himself thus:

1. All the top players are represented (at most), just as at GS;
2. There is no day's rest at Masters once you start playing, unlike GS;
3. The 5 set format at GS allows players to work themselves into the match i.e. you can drop the first 2 sets and still win the match. The 3 set format of the Masters does not allow a player that luxury, you drop the first set you have no room to manouver, you have to win the next 2 sets.

Truth be told, I find his reasons as outlined above pretty compelling. This is why fro me, Nole's season has been so remarkable, the slams and Masters win combo in one season.

In this respect, I wish bleck would put across his own compelling arguments why he disagrees with Koenig rather than simply dismissing Koenig's point as stupid, not cool.

lucky, Conspirator was refering to nadal obviously and I was just jesting him by asking if he/she was talking about djokovic.

What I meant is that djokovic has had one of the best seasons this year and he has been the dominant player. I expect him to have 2/3 slams in another say 2/3 years but I just don't see him dominating like he did this year for 4/5 years. 4/5 years winning multiple slams is what it would take for djokovic to get close to or surpass Roger's current slam tally.

So in short, I see djokovic winning multiple slams and dominating another 2/3 yeras but I just don't think he'll be able to pull it off another 5 years.

I rather agree bleck. We have yet to see who will emerge as the next generation of superstars capable of tumbling the records. But at the moment it is hard to see any player who in the foreseeable future will challenge the majority of those held by Roger. Nor, for that matter, some of those of set by Rafa and Nole.

Ed, too early to say that the next batch of youngsters won't produce someone who can win 16 or more slams. When you looked at Fed at 19, do you feel at that time he would win 16 slams?They're now about 19-21 years old, when Rafa's batch are into their late twenties, this batch of youngsters will be ready to shine.

Rafa's batch is outstanding as it produces two top players who can win three slams in one season, and they were already in top ten when they're still in their teens. Let's see whether the next batch can matchor even overtake them in their achievements.

For the future health of tennis one hopes they are out there!

They will almost certainly be older than the current batch when they get to the top, as we discussed last week, because it is now taking longer for youngsters to climb through the ranks. As you point out, the past few years are notable for the early age the current crop arrived at the top and the length of time they have stayed there.

Lucky: To answer you question, no I didnt expect he would go on to achieve so much.

it is not necessarily easier to win Masters

and it's probably harder to win the World Tour Finals

in slams you get AT LEAST two rounds and sometimes three, four, or five matches against inferior competition. You don't get that anywhere else.

Right ed, about Fed; so no one knows whether any from the new batch of youngsters may end up like Fed. On the other hand, those who win slams at a young age, in their teens or at age 20, may not end up as multiple slam winners.

I've eyes for Tomic, who's 19 this year. Three or four years down the road, he'll only be 22-23, by then Rafa's group will be 26-28 or even 29, so opportunities will be there for Tomic or any from his batch to win slams. Dimitrov and Harrison may be the other twoto win slams. Raonic seems injury prone, so I don't know what to expect from him going forward.

Well lucky he was 19 when he beat Pete the Legend at Wimbledon in 2001. And yes, I thought he would be great. That match is the match where I became a Fed fan for life. I had never seen anybody play tennis so smoothly and effortlessly....and still haven't.

it is so stupid to think it is easier to win a masters then a slam.
- more matches
- less chances in a season
-every player is physically trying to peak at slam
-every player is mentally trying to peak at slam
-it is played over two weeks. focus needs to be longer, when hitting a hot streak it is not so easy to ride the wave. So playing every day can actually help a player. It is easier to play three days in a row when you are hot.
-history in the making with the slams. They play for houner and glory not only against there opponents but against the history of tennis.
-unknown opponents who can suddenly blast you out of the park
- etc
-

And I really dont get the comment about two sets being more difficult to win then three sets...

That is such a stupid argument. I've I was playing Nadal? Wouldnt it be easier for me to win only 2 sets then three;-)

I actually would not win a point but that is not the case. So Fed would have been in the semis against Tsonga. etc why did they say that two sets is more difficult then 3?
Because f the upset against lesser players. But what against the good players?

I am not sure why anyone's beliefs need be characterized as "stupid". Isn't everyone entitled to their opinions?

I can see what Robbie Koenig was talking about, but I happen to believe that ultimately it still is much harder to win a slam. So I disagree with him, but I don't feel the need to call him or anyone else who thinks otherwise, stupid.

Roger once said that when a match goes to 5 sets it is not always the best player who wins. By that I assume he meant that at the end of a long duel the fifth set becomes a shoot out and the first man to blink loses.

That is not always the case in five set matches. Sometimes yes, and I think that is what Fed was referencing. I guess it would apply to the 2008 Wimbledon final with Fed and Rafa. I don't thnk it applied to the 2009 AO, where Rafa just took over and won the fifth set easily, even though he had to be beyond exhaustion after that grueling semi with Verdasco.

I think Fed's statement is interesting in light of how the 2011 USO semi between him and Nole played out. Guess who blinked in that one? The man who had been serving extremely well, who went up two sets to none and who had two match points on his racket.

Maybe that is how Fed sees that match. He seems to have a remarkable ability to recover from those kinds of tough losses.

rafaisthebest,

Just a quick shoutout to you for kindly posting the key elements of Koenig's argument about Masters being tougher than slams. While I don't agree, it was good of you to at least provide his reasons for what he said.

@sienna, everyone knows your tactics.................we will not fall for them. You are repeatedly using the word stupid to draw people into a personal argument and then you will pivot to cheryl and as k her why she is only banning fedfans and not the person who is arguing with you. So, before you bandy "stupid" around, look in the mirror.................you might, just might, get a clue.

We get it darling..............you are feeling lonely with your friends twiddling their thumbs in purgatory.

Relax and be merry! Fed is the outright favourite to win WTF, gloriously disparaging Muzza as usual, all is well in the world!! (or, is it?)

Geez........

My pleasure, NNY.................

and don't worry about me, attempted put-downs by bitter fedfans don't cut any ice with me...............

Rafa's back today, baby!

Vamos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rafaisthebest,

You really nailed it in your post @ 4:51 AM. That's exactly how it works. I always try to respect everyone's point of view, even if I disagree. Koenig doesn't just say any old thing that come into his head. In fact, this is a discussion we have had on this site a few times in the past, i.e. is it harder to win a slam or a Masters.

I can see the arguments on both sides and still believe that slams reward those who are able to play the best in long best three out of five set matches, those with consistency and athletic fitness and mental toughness. We do see upsets in Masters tournaments where it's best two out of three sets matches. It's less common in slam events, where the cream usually rises to the top.

It seems to me the Slam format suits the "big fish" better, and this is borne by Slam results where rank outsiders (barring Sod at FO and Berdy at Wimby) rarely make it to the semis and beyond. They have the attributes you mention, consistency, athletic fitness and mental toughness. But very important is the point Ricky brought up in his post of 11/19/11..................these same top guys, "get AT LEAST two rounds and sometimes three, four, or five matches against inferior competition.", warm-ups for the tougher, later rounds. This does not happen at Masters level. They get thrown into the deep-end immediately they hit the court, same with WTF.

How many times have we seen the big 4 bounced out in the early rounds of Slams? The closest I can remember were the scares (nb, not outright bounces) such as Rafa's near miss against Isner at FO this year and Fed's near miss against (can't even remember his name) at Wimby when Berdy made the finals.

Masters, on the other hand, we have had plenty of big fish early round shocks!

So, I think Robbie Koenig had the big fish in mind when he said what he did. For the rest of the locker-room it's the other way round obviously, and you can see this in the way they go hell for leather when they meet big fish in the early rounds of Masters. They know that in a best of 5-sets format they do not stand a chance precisly because they do not possess those attributes (consistency, athletic fitness, mental toughness) to go the distance, so their best chance is in a best of 3-set format.

So, Koenig's point was not that Masters are harder to win than Slams OVERALL, but that this may be the case for the big fish and they may actually revel in the best of 5-set format as opposed to the best of 3-set format. The reverse may be true for the rest of the field.

Someone may then say I am implying that Muzza is not a big fish since he yet to win a Slam. Au contraire, Muzza is a consistent Slam player, reaching the semis invariably, so to me this counts as a big fish showing.

twisting and turning.
The claim was that masters are easier to win then slams.

I did not call the persons stupid who said this but the idea is stupid. And then it is said in favor of that claim that it is easier in 5 sets to prevail. Yeas duh the knife cuts both sites. But in the end what counts for the most is that you have to beat every opponent and win 3 sets 7 times. So it is alway harder to beat Djokovic, Nadal, Murray, Tsonga or whomever in a best of 3, I agree that in slams the best players are relatively better because they are better. But I feel that would benefit the claim that slams are more difficult to win then masters.
So the ideay is monsterous and only on this site because dear Rafa has managed to win so many clay masters. otherwise you would not all be so very fond of claiming masters are more difficult to win. Nobody ever goes into the claim of bleck and myself that players use masters to get ready for slams. So why would it be easier to win a tourney where the players are not yet at there best.

Rafa's back today, baby!

Vamos!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

rafaisthebest , 11/20/11 4:58 AM


And I shall be there! Let's hope Rafa gives his fans something to smile about.

Vamos Rafa!

^^^^^^I am green with envy, please cheer heartily for Rafa out there in London, nadline!

Vamos!!!!!!!!

11/20/11 9:21 AM

Sienna: You are looking for Reds under the Beds again! Debating the issue of Koenig's remarks on Slams versus Masters is not an attempt to denigrate Roger's Slam record. Apart from anything else Rafa has 10 of his own, with hopefully more to come, and Roger is within a whisker of matching Rafa's Masters' tally. So why would Rafans have a motive for downgrading Slam wins in favour of Masters?

Re: using Masters to prepare for Slams. Of course there are times when SOME players use SOME Masters for this purpose and you are not necessarily seeing them at their very best - i.e. they may be holding back for the big push. A good example of this is the pre USO swing when form there is not necessarily an indicator form at the Open.

ed, I posted it originally because I thought it was an interesting and different point of view. I don't agree with Koenig anyway, The slams are invested with so much kudos that winning them has become a completely different ball game for a start...and lol a cliche to end.
At least I can spell Koenig now too!

So thank you finally caseclosed about masters and slams. Not the same league and to win any slam is much more difficult then to win any masters.

deuce,

Thanks for posting it. I like reading different opinions even if I do not agree with them. I enjoy a different perspective. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I disagree with Koenig and believe that slams are more difficult, so I have no idea how that plays into this idea that Rafa fans are trying to demean slams.

ed,

I have never heard that expression! Looking for Reds under the Beds! I like it. I liken it to looking for trouble or insults where there are none intended!

much more difficult? No.

NNY: Exactly. The search for hidden meanings where none exist..................and the implication that Rafans are a subversive influence.

What I should have mentioned is that there's a certain amoun of finger-pointing from both directions.

But golly gosh, things are far more harmonious these days!

Well, that's to be expected. Nobody said things would be perfect.

However, we have been able to engage in actual talk about tennis and that's progress!

Nadal said. "Sampras versus Ivanisevic match. or? one between those kind? of players, is not enjoyable. It's not really tennis. it is a few swings of the racquet. For me in the past it was just serve. serve"

arrogant smug.


clay excluded. successive win 0. ? If grass and a? hard are fast. Like Sampras era. Nadal is able to win only with clay. power of defense and muscles. boring ugly. All? the surface is slow now. SICK.


Fake time-out. cheater. gamesmanship. too noisy annoying always. excuse injury for lose. retire for likely lose. etc.


most arrogant annoying blind fan.

sucks nadal

lol. rafaisthebest etc

that Nadal's fan is arrogant and blind also in the name.

too annoying. same like nadal

sucks