Berdych will come into the match with the confidence of upsetting Andy Murray in the quarters and the knowledge that he?s beaten the Swiss in 3 of their last 4 meetings.

Prediction ? Berdych in 3.
Federer and Berdych battle for Paris final berth

So wrong Cheryl Murray. So wrong.

Whilst I don't think this will be easy, Fed in straights is the plan.
Fleur, 11/12/11 10:29 AM

Ricky,

I thinks you should do the review of the match here. You are fairer and more in song with TMF.

Great game Fed and great to watch it all way through with no interruptions.
11/12/11 5:04 AM | Cheryl Murray

Cheryl! Dominated just the hardcourts?
It is in these little observations where you can see where her alliances are.

Ricky also should do the aftermath clearly Cheryl is not the most objective person to write about Fed.

Onwards with the celebrations of this match. I cannot wait untill Fed meets the so called top three. If he can play at this level again then there is no stopping him.

Too bad that Berdych had to endure a close 3-setter with Andy yesterday...

phoenix, It really isn't too bad for you because had he not "endured" a 3 set close match with Andy he would've still lost in straights and you'd have no phony excuse to believe in.

bleck, I'm going to say whet he always says to sienna and me...phoenix needs to take his meds!/

Come on you people, it's obvious that Berdych did not play here as good as he played Andy yesterday. ;-)

Some of Muzza fans can do the math after Roger wins tomorrow. If Fed wins itis within 700 points?
So that would be 1 RR match and the final. year end #3 could go to the wire.

Fed taking his dream away would be a very hard blow for Murray!

Sienna, By my calculation the points difference will be 530 if Fed wins tomorrow. Thats why AndyM took the WC for Basel then played Paris he was trying to put a margin between Fed and himself. Makes London even more exciting, but its not over till the fat lady sings.

Probably phoenix didn't watch both matches with Berdych. He served and returned well today. Roger, unlike Andy yesterday, did not allow him to dictate the rallies. Roger pushed him behind the baseline and pressured him. Roger's best defense today was a good attacking offence.

Oh and Berdych showed no signs of fatigue. He just got TMF'ed!

mojo on ATP site the points are updated with the rounds,

Murray 7380 and Fed 6050

So Fed can gain another 400 to close the gap to 930 ..... a bit to much if that is true
, But 530 would not be totally unrealistic to gain.

Hi Sienna, thats good to know about the ATP sites, thank you for the info.

numero
So true. And there where plenty of moments in the match where Fed could easily dropped a down a level and berdych would have taken advantage. But as you say he got TMFered

Ok Fed has now 6,270 points. So only 1110 in it when he wins tomorrow 710.
Hopefully they will meet in the semi so they can both play for the #3 ranking.
Fed would still have to win in both tournements the final of course....

Liars are exposed by their own words. When their idol dropped to #4, they say it's nothing, now after just one title they're counting the eggs before it's even hatched...#3 ranking now very important eh?

before scoretracker pound on me, counting chickens is what i meant :-)

Fed has always stated that it's No. 1 that matters, but I get what sienna is saying. Fed has to get to 3 to overtake 2, to get back to No. 1. small steps are what's needed here. After all, he went from 1, to 2, to 3, to 4, isn't it? So now, it's, 4 to 3, to 2, to 1. I believe that's the order one has to follow. Nos. 3 and 4 are not important coz they fall anywhere in the draw, and that's unimportant to Rog. he can beat anyone on any given day. Bring back Djokovic and we'll see. I believe djokovic didn't want to meet Rog, hence, he let himself lose in Basel and pulled out of Bercy. I'm positive djokovic knows that roger's the type who likes to avenge his losses. He's more moltivated when there's a goal in sight. Go Roger, just do it!

It means nothing to Fed 3 or 4. He wants to be#1,
I on the otherhand wish to see a fullscale globalwar between Feday on court in Londen.
And I like to have a go at the Murray fans just because they can handle a little fun.They were so happy with reaching #3 it would be just funny if he could not reach that goal.)I say dream' that is just harmles jokingaround. Try it yourself lighten up alittle.

Yeah, lighten up phoenix, hows about you worrying about Murray and when he going to wins a slam? Federer has sights on this event now, and at least 2, yes, at least 2 in 2012!

Imagine, what you going to do phoenix when fed wins AO and Wimbledon, and reaches finals of the other two, with sheer possibilities.

You gonna have a stroke!

phoenix, Contrary to murray's dream of reaching #3 for Roger #3 and #2 are places he'll need to be in his road to #1. Being #3 or #4 draw wise is the same (I've lost count on how many times I've said this).

For murray reaching #3 was like a dream, an objective (lack of ambition maybe) but for Roger is #1 that's important. Of course he'll need to be #3 and #2 before reaching #1. So the views of murray and Roger regarding #3 are totally different.

It means nothing to Fed 3 or 4. He wants to be#1,

Sienna
, 11/13/11 8:48 AM

Yeah, I want to be Queen of England......................doesn't mean I can be one.

bleck, it wasn't a "dream" for Andy, it was a goal to be No 3 at year end. Throughout his career he's set himself these targets eg get in top 20, top 10 etc. To date, he's succeeded. I don't know if he'll succeed with this one but here's hoping! And be sure, if he achieves this, he'll have another, small steps you know?

Hang on Deuce and 'Keep The Faith' as Bon Jovi would say.

I said "hard courts" because this is a hard court tournament. His domination on grass has nothing to do with it...and he certainly didn't dominate anything on clay.

Fed had at least three years of the Djoker maybe four if you count 07 with them.
Certainly those years will be remembered as Federer dominating tennis as a sport not only hardcourts.

Viva Le Federer!!!! (your fans in Colorado USA.) Wish you would play a match here sometime!!!!!!! Denver is the Mile High City. One mile above sea level!!!

Sienna - I'm not disagreeing with you on the whole, though it must be admitted that since the clay court season does cut a swath through the tennis season, to claim that Federer dominated the sport is somewhat untrue.

His most impressive feat was his domination on hard courts -- especially since the grass season is 3 weeks long for him.

Cheryl
Of course he did reached 4 straith garros finals winning the last one!

If you claim domination and want to nit pick if he on a surface was as succesful as HC or grass I agree. But when you write a story about him playing great and reminissent of TMF years. You just might for argument sake use tennis as a whole and not nitpick on HC. the fact that it is a HC tourne is irrelevant you want to adress a certain feeling from years gone by. So he was the dominant force in those years. I agree that he lost matches to Nadal even in TM<F yearsm, but that would not take anything away from the brute powerhouse he was during those years.
If yuou want proof look at the state of Djokovic or Nadal. It is almost impossible to stay on that level ahead of the pack for such a long time.

I have no problem calling Rafa the better claycourter, but there was only one dominator in those years.

I would also say that Rafa dominated in 2010, as he was clearly the best on clay and grass and second on the hard courts, having won one of the hard court slams and reaching the final of the WTF. He has also dominated in 2008, on clay and on grass and was second to Nole on the hard courts. Nole dominated this year, best on hard and grass and second to Rafa on clay.

So Fed dominated in four seasons, from 2004-2007; Rafa two seasons, 2008 & 2010; and Nole in 2011. Fed and Rafa each dominated for half a season in 2009.

^^You call 9-7 in the fifth dominating? Please.

How many titles did Rafa win in those 2 years compared to how many Roger won in 2004-7? I would say he dominated in 2010 only based on the GS results.

That illustrates my point nicely, numero. Federer's utter domination of hard courts, which makes up the vast majority of the tennis season, is what was so impressive and why his record was what it was. Nadal's 2010 season, impressive though it was, was only partially dominant on hards.

This is dominating a tennis year.......

Match Winning % 50+ Wins
1. John McEnroe (1984) 96.47 82?3
2. Jimmy Connors (1974) 95.88 93?4
3. Roger Federer (2005) 95.29 81?4
4. Roger Federer (2006) 94.85 92?5
5. Novak Djokovic (2011) 94.52 69?4
6. Björn Borg (1979) 93.33 84?6
7. Ivan Lendl (1986) 92.50 74?6
8. Roger Federer (2004) 92.50 74?6
9. Ivan Lendl (1985) 92.31 84?7
10. Ivan Lendl (1982) 92.17 106?9

Remember this is against the whole field. So stupid claims of weakera do not apply because the mens game )atp 100' is always pretty deep from the early 70´s,

So Lendl with 3 marks in top 10 so is Roger.
Borg had 4 years with winning % over 90 but he is not listed here.

Pretty much show who the dominators are.... Novak better not lose a RR match ;-)

So to stay on the save site we shoul look at a fair amount of defeats in a year lets say 5probably 6 is the line. Then we surely include Novaks year and Borg/:Lendl years. So years with a max of six defeats and with the amount of wins they all have in this list, (plenty of slam wins for the lot. Are the dominated years in menstennis from the open era.
I am so sorry but you cannot look at this hard evidence a different way.

Roger with 3 of those years stands pretty much out of it.

Ok so it issafetosay that this thread is now about domination and dominance in the tennis world.


So above are some posts to look at domination in tenns according to years with a high winning % combined withfew defeats.

Bo let see domination onthe slams. Winning slams or reaching finals or semis in a calender year, Again with the depth of the mens game reaching finals, semis the weakera that has beenon topic here is pretty much out of the eqasions.

Laver had 2 calender yearslam but not in the open era. We will eave his great achievements untouched.

Calendar Year AchievementsThree Slams Year
Jimmy Connors 1974
Mats Wilander 1988
Roger Federer 2004
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Rafael Nadal 2010
Novak Djokovic 2011
This shows that there are 5 players dominating aslam year. 4 with 1 year and 1 with 3 years.

All Four Finals Year
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2009

Wow only 1 player has reached all 4 slamfinals in a calender year, he did it 3 times.

All Four Semifinals Year
Ivan Lendl 1987
Roger Federer 2005
Roger Federer 2006
Roger Federer 2007
Roger Federer 2008
Rafael Nadal 2008
Roger Federer 2009
Novak Djokovic 2011
Andy Murray 2011

This record is even more telling. Did it happen with all easy draws? If easy draws exist then it is safe to say the player with only 1 mark is more susseptible to easy draws then a player with 5 calender achievements.

In the open era this pretty much conclude the domination at the slams during a calender year- Fed tops his class with A +

I am sorry for the misspelling of some words or the typos. Its late and need some sleep.

These are for you dearest Fleur!
Stay cool and I see you in a coup
le of days back on TT...

número, so who won the Wimbledon title in the end, and who won 2000 pts I/o 1200 pts in the end? (Fed had to be thankful for the rain, if not it would be a straight set demolition and we won't be hearing from numero here!).

sienna thanks for your effort but we are talking about the present era.

cheryl, I don't question Fed's greatness but do know that two third of the tours are played on the hard courts and hard courts being one of Fed's best surface. If two third of the tours were on clay, I have no question who would dominate. Still, Rafa finishes most years within the top three on hard courts(top two in fact, in 2008,2009,2010) and keeps dominating on clay, and is no.1 or no.2 on grass.

lucky,

The fact remains that winning 9-7 in the fifth set does not constitute 'dominating' in any way shape or fashion. Winning 7 out of 17 tournaments is not dominating the ATP tour. Roger has dominated 3 or 4 years and Nole has dominated the tour for one year. Rafa won some very big titles and dominated one year in GS winning 3 out of 4. Not the same.

número, Fed also didn't dominate over Rafa in that Wimbledon 2007 final, as he had to win two tie breaker sets and beat Rafa in five sets. So seinna's theory that Fed dominated the whole of 2005-2007 seasons was also not true, as Fed didn't dominate on clay, and didn't really dominated on grass in 2007. If being no.2 on a surface can be considered as dominant(like what sienna was implying about Fed on clay), then Rafa being no.2 on hard courts for three solid years would also be considered some form of dominance, not forgetting the no.1 dominant player on hard courts during those years keep changing hands, ie Nole in 2008 & 2009, and Fed in 2010.

I don't see anyone being dominant on all surfaces. Nole came close this year, had he won the FO this year, he would have dominated on all three surfaces, as he would have won all his clay tournaments played, including beating the king of clay in Masters and slam on clay! Not forgetting he would have also won the calendar slam!

Actually Nole has taken over from Fed, as the dominant hard court player, from 2008 till now, with the exception of 2010, though his dominance in 2008 want as dominant as his 2011. Also, in 2009, Nole had a shared dominance with Rafa on the hard courts, both won above 5900 points on the hard courts (the countable ones). In fact in 2009, Nole's indoor hard court results were similar to Fed's this year, up to this point before the WTF.

If Rafa chose to play the SA clay court swing, and skipped some hard court events, he would also have won more titles and cut down on some losses, and it's still within the ATP rules, so it's a matter of choice for Rafa. If only he would concentrate on winning on his favorite surface! Now he's being 'penalized' for not doing so!

Let's see who will be the dominant player in 2012, or will there be one?

One more point, going by numero's logic, Fed wasn't dominant in 2007 too, as he won only eight titles and had nine losses out of sixteen tournaments played. Also he was out early in four of the nine Masters, three of which were on the hard courts. He was also relying on his GS wins for majority of his points. Whatever applies to Rafa's 2010 also applies to Fed's 2007.

Luckystar,
You only can judge the present by looking at the past. (and I am not a filospher;-))

But of course there is no one in tennis who would be the ultimate dominator, but given the past and how others have faired in this game. I feel strong about laying claims for Federer.

Rafa is not being penalized. it is just the way the coocky crumbles. The game of tennis is what it is. So it is hardcourt dominated. When a youngpro grows up he knows that for a fact. To lay claims for rafa if the tour was dominated bij claycourt is really not the case. In a discussion like this we need to keep the amount of uncertainties as low as possible. So depth of menstennis is (I feel) somehwhat the same in tennis and the undergrounds are also as they are. Well courts slow down etc Grass used to have two or three slams. But on the whole it is pretty much like it is.
If Rafa would have chosen, like he did in the early part of his career, (remember our discussion about the swift rise?) he surely would have been able to win more clay matches. But Rafa would never have gotten to the place he is at the moment. He would not have succeded in winning HC slams if he was not willing to invest in his HC game. The losses where inevitable for his slamwins. So I feel he still would not have dominated a year like others have.

sienna, I'm not questioning Fed during his dominant years. Losing only 4-6 matches a year is in fact a strong case for dominance. Winning three slams a year, and especially on three surfaces, is also some form of dominance. Reaching four slam finals and winning three of them is also dominance. All or any of the above plus winning the most ranking points certainly can be considered a strong dominance over the field in general.

I'm just against the idea of narrowing down the definition of 'dominance' to suit only one's favorite and trying to 'lower the value' of other players' impressive results. I've no problem recognizing Fed's dominance during 2004-2007, be it on one or two surfaces. Likewise, Rafa's and Nole's dominance on two surfaces should also be recognized.

I'm still waiting for someone who really can dominate on all surfaces to appear, it may not he from the current batch though.

sienna, Rafa has proven that he can win slams and Masters on the hard courts. Going forward, if he wishes, he can skip the Asian swing and concentrate on the SA clay court swing. Also if he skips Barcelona in future, he can go to Hamburg, that way he can play more clay court events and cut down on the hard court events.

All I'm saying is Rafa obviously is not too concerned about how many matches he wins or loses in a season; he's more concern about winning the big tournaments, for it's the slams that define a player's career, especially so these days. Rafa is already among one of the greats and he's happy about it, however that does not mean that he'll stop there. All he wants is to realize his full potential and he obviously feels that he still has room for improvements.

Why would he want to do that. They revell the chance of playing eachother so why would he go and play clay tourneys there is no hounor in that. Those guys who are listed at top of the ranking with winning % which I listed did not try to do that. They went for it. That is why i left out Lendl's 82 year he really won a lot of different matches but als had 9 defeats.

Rafa is not concerned so you should not be concerned. The men who dominated tennis are there no big deal. Rafa did it his way and has other achievements, but it is not like dominating tennis. Although he is a tough coocky to crack;-)

sienna, I think you and número are more concerned about the dominance than I do. You're the one who question Cheryl when she mentioned about Fed's dominance on hard courts only. Both of you brush aside some other's achievements, set your own standards about 'dominance'.

I mentioned Rafa and the SA clay court swing is precisely to illustrate that number of wins during a season can be manipulated; one can win only on the hard courts and still dominate the tours, even if he's not good on clay or grass or both. True dominance to me, is to be able to win on various surfaces and dominate others on various surfaces.

As Rafa grows older, he may cut down on some hard court events and concentrate on clay and grass only, as he's unhappy that hard courts can lead to more injuries. For Fed, I foresee him cutting down on tournaments that he'll play, he may skip some clay tournaments or maybe the Asian swing too, that's just my guess of course.

Luckystar, i will explaine why I showed the stats.

But first. You came into this conversation. I thougth it was strange that Cheryl deliberately was putting in HC when referring to Fed's domination.
She has a different view as to us about Fed being dominant in the sport.

this is what you said to me. Clearly that Fed justifies all of uoure reasoning. And many I have shown in the few comments I made about domination.

Cheryl did not agree an I am glad you did.

sienna, I'm not questioning Fed during his dominant years. Losing only 4-6 matches a year is in fact a strong case for dominance. Winning three slams a year, and especially on three surfaces, is also some form of dominance. Reaching four slam finals and winning three of them is also dominance. All or any of the above plus winning the most ranking points certainly can be considered a strong dominance over the field in general.

I showed the stats because they illustrate a player domination in a year. I also saw that Lendls last year (or first) was not up to par solely because of the amount of games he played. Not winning any slams would be not considered dominant i feel.
So given the fact thjat all thos players play the ATP tour like it was meant. Not thinking to increase winloss records but playing the game for the love and eternity, they would be years where there was no misunderstanding about the weight of the tournements played. it will be the biggest occassions they entered. See the list and so it is!
Me rasing that bar of defetas to 5/6 gives at least Djokovic the chance to not win WTF and still his year would be dominant by that stat. So I did him a favor to actually allow him to lose and still enter teh group of players who dominated tennis for a year.

And who knows I am not ready yet/ When I find the time I will give more examples of domination in a single tennis year. Winning more then 10 titles also is domination so Rafa did have his share of domination but just not the way those others have.

It's OK sienna. I've mentioned in some earlier threads, that I don't expect Rafa to dominate on the hard courts. He may dominate on clay and grass, and share dominance on the hard courts with players like Nole, Murray or Delpo. In fact it's being so since 2008 and 2010, but overall he's still the dominant player and ended both years as no.1.

I'm more interested in the coming years, that Rafa can continue to win some slams, and seal his position as one of the all time greats and having his own records. It's not necessary to be the Goat, but to be remembered among the greats will do for this fan here.