Wimbledon 2015

Wicklow Brave

There is absolutely NO chance that peak Fed would beat peak Nole as easily as people are saying here. The US Open Final in 2007 as a benchmark, peak Fed v pre peak 20 yo Nole 7-6 7-6 6-4. They are three close sets where Nole was a long way off the level he has reached since. Nole even beat Fed at the Australian after that. Peak Fed v peak Nole on hardcourt would be a five setter that could go either way imo, I'd nearly favour Nole tbh. On clay I'd go for Nole and on grass I'd give it to Fed but certainly not in straight sets.

Rob2D

Wicklow Brave wrote: »

There is absolutely NO chance that peak Fed would beat peak Nole as easily as people are saying here.

Not EASILY, just that he would. That the argument of older Federer being a better player than the young Federer is completely wrong.

John.Icy

Wicklow Brave wrote: »

There is absolutely NO chance that peak Fed would beat peak Nole as easily as people are saying here. The US Open Final in 2007 as a benchmark, peak Fed v pre peak 20 yo Nole 7-6 7-6 6-4. They are three close sets where Nole was a long way off the level he has reached since. Nole even beat Fed at the Australian after that. Peak Fed v peak Nole on hardcourt would be a five setter that could go either way imo, I'd nearly favour Nole tbh. On clay I'd go for Nole and on grass I'd give it to Fed but certainly not in straight sets.

BUT....French open 2011, post peak fed versus 2011 Novak which surely matches his 2015 peak.

These kinds of discussions have no answer as no one who thinks one way will ever give in, and of course, we'll never ever know. So a never ending argument. That's the beauty of tennis.

lostcat

I kinda hate the era/strong era thing, its pointless to even talk about it.

This era is looking like its about to turn into a weak era, there is no one coming through. With a question mark over Nadal, Federer only looking like making a thrust at Wimbledon, Murray being flakey and Stan being streaky (and 30), theres no reason Djokovic shouldn't clean up over the next couple of years the way Federer did ten years ago.

Is todays field really much stronger than it was in 2005? I'm not so sure....

Wicklow Brave

John.Icy wrote: »

BUT....French open 2011, post peak fed versus 2011 Novak which surely matches his 2015 peak.

These kinds of discussions have no answer as no one who thinks one way will ever give in, and of course, we'll never ever know. So a never ending argument. That's the beauty of tennis.

Very true lol

Rob2D

lostcat wrote: »

Is todays field really much stronger than it was in 2005? I'm not so sure....

Not at all, you had some killers around back then too. I hate the whole "weak era" argument too.

No era is truly weak for fcuk sake.

walshb

Rob2D wrote: »

Not EASILY, just that he would. That the argument of older Federer being a better player than the young Federer is completely wrong.

I don't think anyone is saying that older Federer is better than younger, whatever that actually means. People need to take their heads out of Federer's ass and realise that as beautiful as he is stylistically, it didn't make him an automatically better player than some others. Nadal has a clear lead over him, and Nole is level. Man to man there is nothing clear that says that Peak Fed beats peak Nole.

SlickRic

These arguments are silly.

Fed, Nadal, Nole...they're all among the best ever. All their primes are magnificent.

If they all played each other at their peaks, Nole is tops on hard courts, Fed wins on grass, Rafa wins on clay.

But all matches are close and nobody beats anyone easily.

Fed's style does mean he's going to be favoured by most IMO. The amount of Grand Slam titles also helps, but I'm fairly sure Nole is going to get to 15 himself at the very least. He's that good.

Today, Nole was mesmerising. He was a wall. Fed missed because he was going for so much. Fed was cautious at certain times because he was so conscious of Nole's ability to retrieve and counter punch almost anything he threw.

Incredible.

SmallTeapot

I was really vying for a Federer win today, but alas it was not to be. Nole clearly the better opponent in the closing set. Would like to see Fed up there next year, possibly winning the tournament. Hopefully retirement is not on the cards, still think there's at least another good season left in him.

the_monkey

SlickRic wrote: »

These arguments are silly.

Fed, Nadal, Nole...they're all among the best ever. All their primes are magnificent.

If they all played each other at their peaks, Nole is tops on hard courts, Fed wins on grass, Rafa wins on clay.

But all matches are close and nobody beats anyone easily.

Fed's style does mean he's going to be favoured by most IMO. The amount of Grand Slam titles also helps, but I'm fairly sure Nole is going to get to 15 himself at the very least. He's that good.

Today, Nole was mesmerising. He was a wall. Fed missed because he was going for so much. Fed was cautious at certain times because he was so conscious of Nole's ability to retrieve and counter punch almost anything he threw.

Incredible.

I wouldn't be so sure, things can change quickly in tennis ..
could be some youngster that could appear and get in Nole's head ..

15 is a stretch ... 12 is more realistic ..

walshb

the_monkey wrote: »

I wouldn't be so sure, things can change quickly in tennis ..
could be some youngster that could appear and get in Nole's head ..

15 is a stretch ... 12 is more realistic ..

Good point. I'd say he has 2-3 (8-12 possible slams) good solid peak years ahead of him if he stays focused and healthy, but the talent pool is deep enough in the top 10-15 that on any of their days they can upset each other. If Nole could get 50 percent slams on the next 10-12 that is 12-14 he could amass.

walshb

BTW, Nole's cheque was 1.9 million pounds? Did I hear that correctly from Sue Barker? That's a massive prize. I can't recall it ever big that big for the winner.

Rjd2

John.Icy wrote: »

A great championship overall though, would have loved to have gotten Murray-Nadal in the quarters though, and Stan-Djokovic in the semi.

I don't think I can really agree with that sadly though.

In the 15 matches it took Murray, Roger and Novak to get to the semi finals, only once was one of them pushed by Anderson. Heck even then while it was a joy to watch Federer roll back the years both semi finals were straight set affairs.

The most exciting run of the men side was probably in the Gasquet section.:eek:

Dimitrov, Raonic,Kryigos and Wawrinka to a lesser extent didn't excel, Kei went home early and only Posiplil of the younger brigade had a decent Slam and that was more due to his quarter opening up due to Tsonga and Nadal messing up.

And of course the final a repeat of last year never really took off.


The ladies side had Muguruzu kicking the door down which was pretty cool, but while Serena =legend, bar Watson bringing the fire, it was pretty dull after that.


Hoping for a more interesting US Open with some different names up their especially in the men side.

walshb

Biggest disappointment for me was Gasquet spoiling the semi final line up!:mad:

Rjd2

walshb wrote: »

Biggest disappointment for me was Gasquet spoiling the semi final line up!:mad:

Possibly but at least his matches with Kryigos and Wawrinka were two of the more memorable matches of the competition.

Shame he beat Stan, but if you really need 5 to beat Gasquet,it doesn't really inspire any hope against Novak though.

walshb

Rjd2 wrote: »

Possibly but at least his matches with Kryigos and Wawrinka were two of the more memorable matches of the competition.

Shame he beat Stan, but if you really need 5 to beat Gasquet,it doesn't really inspire any hope against Novak though.

Yes, but styles is so important in some match ups. Stan's more powerful ground strokes matches up better vs. Nole.

the_monkey

I'm amazed how the media all of a sudden are going on about Djokovic being the greatest, "There is no big 4 , only a Big One - and the rest ..."

Stan Wavrinka could win the USO and split this years slams 50/50 ... easily ..

Who knows what would have happened had Federer played like he plauyed v Murray yesterday ...

Then there'd be a very different picture being painted by the media today.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

the_monkey wrote: »

I'm amazed how the media all of a sudden are going on about Djokovic being the greatest, "There is no big 4 , only a Big One - and the rest ..."

Stan Wavrinka could win the USO and split this years slams 50/50 ... easily ..

Who knows what would have happened had Federer played like he plauyed v Murray yesterday ...

Then there'd be a very different picture being painted by the media today.

In reality though Wawrinka isn't considered one of the big 4 and the last time one of the big 4 who wasn't Djokovic won a slam was Rafa at last year's French Open.

walshb

the_monkey wrote: »

Who knows what would have happened had Federer played like he plauyed v Murray yesterday ...

Then there'd be a very different picture being painted by the media today.

But Federer can only play as well as the opponent lets him. Murray wasn't all that great the other day.

loyatemu

Federer also didn't play well because he was afraid wary of Djok - his serve was poorer and he was noticeably hitting more cautiously even when he wasn't under pressure.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

BTW, Nole's cheque was 1.9 million pounds? Did I hear that correctly from Sue Barker? That's a massive prize. I can't recall it ever big that big for the winner.

Yes ,that's correct.

Prize money for this year increased by 7 percent to reach a total of 26.75 million pounds ($40.60 million).

The men's and women's singles champions each received 1.88 million pounds ($2.85 million).

The prize fund was ''the highest ever in professional tennis,'' surpassing last year's U.S. Open purse of $38.25 million.

In the space of four years, Wimbledon's purse has almost doubled in size from the 14.6 million pounds ($22.4 million) on offer in 2011.

Ticket prices for the centre court have become very expensive .
Its at least £100 or 140 euro for any ticket to centre court the start of the second week and it increases each day.

Mousewar

Djokovic is more bearable than Nadal but it's still difficult watching backboard tennis winning at Wimbledon. How laughable that he's a three time champ at the home of attacking tennis and he hasn't won at RG where his monotonous grinding is actually suited.

Mousewar

And Djokovic will definitely win a hatful of slams now. Who's going to stop him? Nadal is fading. Federer can't beat him. Murray's not good enough.
In his post-peak years, Federer had to deal with Djokovic and Nadal - two players who are gonna retire with double figure slam totals. Without them Federer would have about 25 slams now. In his post-peak years, Djokovic is only gonna have to deal with old man Fed, broken-down Nadal, flatters-to-deceive Murray and a whole host of nobodies from the new generation. Honestly, can't see a top looking player anywhere in the 18-25 years group right now. One of the poorest new generations I can remember.

lostcat

Mousewar wrote: »

Djokovic is more bearable than Nadal but it's still difficult watching backboard tennis winning at Wimbledon. How laughable that he's a three time champ at the home of attacking tennis and he hasn't won at RG where his monotonous grinding is actually suited.

I've never seen a backboard that returns should be winners with interest.

I don't really understand this about Djokovic only being a defensive player.

Is hitting winners at full stretch on the slide not attacking? Is lashing a return of serve (first or second) as deep as possible not attacking?

Is calibrating your shots to land within a foot of the baseline time after time purely defensive?

Is finding more offensive angles than your opponent defensive?

He is certainly not as overtly offensive as Federer but calling him a backboard....people are watching a different match to the one I watched...

walshb

Mousewar wrote: »

And Djokovic will definitely win a hatful of slams now. Who's going to stop him? Nadal is fading. Federer can't beat him. Murray's not good enough.
In his post-peak years, Federer had to deal with Djokovic and Nadal - two players who are gonna retire with double figure slam totals. Without them Federer would have about 25 slams now. In his post-peak years, Djokovic is only gonna have to deal with old man Fed, broken-down Nadal, flatters-to-deceive Murray and a whole host of nobodies from the new generation. Honestly, can't see a top looking player anywhere in the 18-25 years group right now. One of the poorest new generations I can remember.

Was 2007/2008/2009/2010/2011/2012 post peak Federer? Let's say that during peak Federer years he didn't have to deal with Nole and Nadal at their peak?

The disdain for some of the fantastic achievements of some amazing baseliners is pathetic.

BTW, RF is a 7 time SW19 baseline winner!

walshb

lostcat wrote: »

I don't really understand this about Djokovic only being a defensive player.

.

He's an aggressive base-lining counter puncher. He's the James Toney of tennis, not the Floyd Mayweather!

MisterAnarchy

SmallTeapot wrote: »

I was really vying for a Federer win today, but alas it was not to be. Nole clearly the better opponent in the closing set.

Djokovic was the better opponent in the final set but not the first 2 sets ,even Roddick and Cash said that on the BBC highlights last night.

Federer should have won the first set but he didnt take his chances and lost his serve cheaply after breaking Djokovic.

Watching back the match most of Djokovics breaks came as a combination of a few deep returns that Federer struggled to return cleanly,a good few unforced errors by Federer ,notably in the third set where he blew an easy forehand at the net out and poor serving .
The service games he lost ,he lost with a whimper.

Djokovic on the other hand scrapped harder for his service games and was able to get his first serve in on break points and Federer left him off the hook with some poor shot decisions.

On another day ,Federer would have won the first 2 sets.

walshb

Even though Roger could have won set 1 and could have been 2-0 up in sets there was something a bit labored about him. He seemed not near as comfortable as Nole, and despite Nole having several longer service games he was still stronger in the longer rallies, and seemed to be controlling where the ball went that bit better and that bit more. I just got the feeling that Nole was always going to win, and that he knew it.

walshb

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

On another day ,Federer would have won the first 2 sets.

And on another day Nole would not have lost set 2.

MisterAnarchy

walshb wrote: »

Even though Roger could have won set 1 and could have been 2-0 up in sets there was something a bit labored about him. He seemed not near as comfortable as Nole, and despite Nole having several longer service games he was still stronger in the longer rallies, and seemed to be controlling where the ball went that bit better and that bit more. I just got the feeling that Nole was always going to win, and that he knew it.

Yeah ,its almost a mental thing on the big points now against Djokovic like with Nadal.
Roger seems to get nervous and tight on the crucial points something the old Federer didnt ,his serve would always be rock solid.

There was a time Roger would never lose a tie break at Wimbledon .