It just seems bizarre to bash someone Roger's age for losing more than they used to. It is a given. The fact that Roger is still a top player and contested the Wimbledon final amongst other things is to his credit.
Before I got cut off with my mobile phone battery ran out I was about to post that people are just going to have to start getting used to 3 or 4 out of the 8 grand slam final spots on offer in a calendar year being taken up by non big 4 players.
I am not writing off the big 4 off but the days of only the big 4 being capable of making a grand slam final, grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament, year after year after year are now gone.
Before I got cut off with my mobile phone battery ran out I was about to post that people are just going to have to start getting used to 3 or 4 out of the 8 grand slam final spots on offer in a calendar year being taken up by non big 4 players.
I am not writing off the big 4 off but the days of only the big 4 being capable of making a grand slam final, grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament, year after year after year are now gone.
In the end, Rafa and Novak have won this year, and Fed was close. Andy will be coming back from injury. It's not over but hopefully we're just seeing a bit more competitveness. Which is all most of us have asked for.
Could be exciting times:)
It's very exciting indeed.
The big 4 will probably still take up 4 or 5 of the grand slam final spaces on offer next year. They are still the best overall but their near total supremacy versus allcomers of the rest of the field they held up to last year has come to an end this year.
Seeing 2 non big 4 players contesting a grand slam final is no bad thing.
How refreshing it is to have a completely new slam final. Hopefully this, as well as Wawrinka's win at the Australian is a sign if a new, less predictable era. I'm sure Nadal and Djokovic will bounce back next year but I hope the unstoppable dominance of the top four is over for good now.
I'm supporting Kei for the final like most are here - he just has a game that I enjoy watching. I fear he could be overpowered though. I suppose it would be nice to see Wozniacki won as well. Two massive underdog stories to close out the slam calendar would be nice.
Such viewpoints are looked on by some as though the big 4 are being written off altogether when that is certainly not the case.
The big 4 are still clearly the best but right now they don't appear to be near invincible against the entire rest of the field like they were up to last year.
It just seems bizarre to bash someone Roger's age for losing more than they used to. It is a given. The fact that Roger is still a top player and contested the Wimbledon final amongst other things is to his credit. Just seems a bit desperate to me.
We all have players we like and dislike, whether it be their games, their behaviour or both. We all get a bit carried away but I think we need to remember that in the grand scheme of things it isn't that important. I think we all agreed how stupid our priorities can be after poor Baltacha lost her life. We mustn't lose perspective I definitely include myself in this!!!!
Some people seem to dedicate their lives to actually hating tennis players, which is quite bizarre. Nadal winning a match doesn't actually impact my life I am sure Shortie feels the same way about Andy etc.
To those who have a pop at Federer are those who say he's still playing like he did in 2004 to 2007 and age has nothing to do with his success drying up. It's complete nonsense.
What they mean is Federer only achieved what he did previous decade because he cashed in on a very weak era. The fact that Federer at his age right now has bounced off the ropes and made a Wimbledon final and US Open semi final this year when he seemed for a while last year like not only he would end last year doing well to scrape an end of year world top 10 ranking but also this year do well to avoid falling outside the world's top 20 just shows how great Federer is.
And there is no weak era ever exists in ATP tennis.
And there is no weak era ever exists in ATP tennis.
I think there is a tendency to say that when one or two dominate for years that it must be a "weak" era, rather than that those one or two were simply outstanding.
In one way you could argue that it was a weaker era in that in the previous ones there tended to be more multi-slam winners for each winner to contend with, so it was harder to get to double figures of slam wins.
But equally you could say in the Fed, Nadal (and later Djok) era that there has been greater depth in the men's game such that it has been harder consistently for players below the big four to get to the later stages of slams.
The big 4 are still clearly the best but right now they don't appear to be near invincible against the entire rest of the field like they were up to last year.
I have a feeling that Rafa may be due for a loss at the next French. Can't say why. Nothing to do with recent happenings to the big 4. I think just getting to No. 10 will be a psychological hurdle and by now he should be just starting to be less invincible on clay and is due for a surprise.
I think there is a tendency to say that when one or two dominate for years that it must be a "weak" era, rather than that those one or two were simply outstanding.
In one way you could argue that it was a weaker era in that in the previous ones there tended to be more multi-slam winners for each winner to contend with, so it was harder to get to double figures of slam wins.
But equally you could say in the Fed, Nadal (and later Djok) era that there has been greater depth in the men's game such that it has been harder consistently for players below the big four to get to the later stages of slams.
It's just all a bit pointless, as all these discussions inevitably are, weak, strong eras, unless you can get the Tardis and pluck people and put them in different eras, it's just all subjective guff.
People in all sports, win at the only time they can do, the present. To talk about the ATP or WTA being weaker, nowor then, is all because you generally have or had fave players involved in specific eras.
I think there is a tendency to say that when one or two dominate for years that it must be a "weak" era, rather than that those one or two were simply outstanding.
In one way you could argue that it was a weaker era in that in the previous ones there tended to be more multi-slam winners for each winner to contend with, so it was harder to get to double figures of slam wins.
But equally you could say in the Fed, Nadal (and later Djok) era that there has been greater depth in the men's game such that it has been harder consistently for players below the big four to get to the later stages of slams.
Basically, the whole weak era thing is made up by people who don't like Roger and can't accept that he was just too good then. He beat lots of top quality players. The people who say this are usually Nadal fans who didn't even watch tennis then. Ridiculous stuff, especially considering he won most of his slams when Nadal was around. There are always strong years and weak years in tennis.
In 2010 the competition was extremely weak, Nadal beat Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic who was playing woeful tennis. Roddick and Hewitt and Safin are tougher than the first two by far. He often didn't have to face any of the top players at all. But then many of his slam wins were against strong competition like Novak or Roger. That's just the way tennis is. The point is, you win a slam by winning 7 matches in a row. So to do that multiple times is impressive, whoever you play. To win 1 slam is amazing, so the one slam wonder critics are wrong.
Djokovic won his slams by beating Nadal 3 times, Roger once, Andy twice and Tsonga. In many of those tournaments he beat more than 1 of the fellow big 4 players. Does that mean he is the GOAT? No. It's impressive, but that doesn't change the numbers. Roger has 17 slam wins. That's unbelievable. Roger and Novak's 2006 and 2011 respectively will go down as the greatest years ever. Is Novak's year better because of who he faced? Not in my book. Also we don't know how many slams the likes of Roddick and Safin would have won without Roger there.
Sorry for the rambling post. But the weak era thing is so uninformed. It's like someone on here saying Novak was poor on grass when he had already had one title. I think they were a Nadal fan too, which makes it funnier seen as he beat him in the final and Nadal has had woeful recent results. But again, I think people are wrong to say he is bad there, at least when concerning the second week! Whoever you like and don't like, you can't argue with numbers and the achievements of these guys is insane
Basically, the whole weak era thing is made up by people who don't like Roger and can't accept that he was just too good then. He beat lots of top quality players. The people who say this are usually Nadal fans who didn't even watch tennis then. Ridiculous stuff, especially considering he won most of his slams when Nadal was around. There are always strong years and weak years in tennis.
In 2010 the competition was extremely weak, Nadal beat Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic who was playing woeful tennis. Roddick and Hewitt and Safin are tougher than the first two by far. He often didn't have to face any of the top players at all. But then many of his slam wins were against strong competition like Novak or Roger. That's just the way tennis is. The point is, you win a slam by winning 7 matches in a row. So to do that multiple times is impressive, whoever you play. To win 1 slam is amazing, so the one slam wonder critics are wrong.
Djokovic won his slams by beating Nadal 3 times, Roger once, Andy twice and Tsonga. In many of those tournaments he beat more than 1 of the fellow big 4 players. Does that mean he is the GOAT? No. It's impressive, but that doesn't change the numbers. Roger has 17 slam wins. That's unbelievable. Roger and Novak's 2006 and 2011 respectively will go down as the greatest years ever. Is Novak's year better because of who he faced? Not in my book. Also we don't know how many slams the likes of Roddick and Safin would have won without Roger there.
Sorry for the rambling post. But the weak era thing is so uninformed. It's like someone on here saying Novak was poor on grass when he had already had one title. I think they were a Nadal fan too, which makes it funnier seen as he beat him in the final and Nadal has had woeful recent results. But again, I think people are wrong to say he is bad there, at least when concerning the second week! Whoever you like and don't like, you can't argue with numbers and the achievements of these guys is insane
The one slam wonders thing is complete nonsense.
And on some forums, people mentioned about word number ones who were not year nd world number ones and they lumped Hewitt together with Marecllo Rios and others who were world number one but never won a grand slam title .
Also they rubbished Hewitt because he lost a set 6/0 or 6/1 in a set against Federer in a grand slam final, and lumped him in the one slam wonders class of player (as I've said is complete nonsense anyway) as a result. That's pathetic in any case because he won 2 grand slam titles and ended a year as world number one, and they have all lost sets 6/0 or 6/1 in a big grand slam match at some point or another. Losing a set 6/0 or 6/1 does not make them a terrible player. Hewitt won a set as well in that said grand slam final against a peak Federer which was in itself a great achievement at the time so all the rubbishing of Hewitt's performance at the time was pathetic.
Hewitt and Roddick are greater than Berdych and Soderling because Hewitt and Roddick both won grand slam titles while Berdych and Soderling won 0 grand slam titles apiece, and Hewitt and Roddick were fantastic in the early to middle of the 2000 and who knows if it didn't rain in the 2004 Wimbledon final as Roddick was on top v Federer at that point. Roddick also came so close winning the 2009 Wimbledon final as well. People who say Berdych and Soderling are better than Hewitt and Roddick are talking complete nonsense. Berdych and Soderling's career achievements are no match to Hewitt's and Roddick's.
Hewitt, Murray and Kafelnikov have each won 2 grand slam titles which for all 3 is a fantastic achievement. People are only really comparing Hewitt and Murray snd pillorying Hewitt because they are running down and negatively dissecting Federer's achievements.
It just seems bizarre to bash someone Roger's age for losing more than they used to. It is a given. The fact that Roger is still a top player and contested the Wimbledon final amongst other things is to his credit. Just seems a bit desperate to me.
We all have players we like and dislike, whether it be their games, their behaviour or both. We all get a bit carried away but I think we need to remember that in the grand scheme of things it isn't that important. I think we all agreed how stupid our priorities can be after poor Baltacha lost her life. We mustn't lose perspective I definitely include myself in this!!!!
Some people seem to dedicate their lives to actually hating tennis players, which is quite bizarre. Nadal winning a match doesn't actually impact my life I am sure Shortie feels the same way about Andy etc.[/QUOTE]
BIB Totally. Murray's wins mean nothing to me. Just because I don't want him to win a match/tournament doesn't mean that if he does, I lose sleep or scream in anger or something. Im not sad like that. I don't like the guy, just like you don't like Rafa but I would never wish ill on the guy. I also appreciate that not everyone can agree and like the same players.
Basically, the whole weak era thing is made up by people who don't like Roger and can't accept that he was just too good then. He beat lots of top quality players. The people who say this are usually Nadal fans who didn't even watch tennis then. Ridiculous stuff, especially considering he won most of his slams when Nadal was around. There are always strong years and weak years in tennis.
I don't know why you think Rafa fans are to blame for this misnomer. Also to say that Nadal fans didn't watch tennis then is insinuating that all Nadal fans or young girls, who fangirl over him. Im 26 nearly 27 and Ive watched tennis pre-Nadal era. To suggest Nadal fans say those things is unfounded imo.
In 2010 the competition was extremely weak, Nadal beat Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic who was playing woeful tennis. Roddick and Hewitt and Safin are tougher than the first two by far. He often didn't have to face any of the top players at all. But then many of his slam wins were against strong competition like Novak or Roger. That's just the way tennis is. The point is, you win a slam by winning 7 matches in a row. So to do that multiple times is impressive, whoever you play. To win 1 slam is amazing, so the one slam wonder critics are wrong.
Its not exactly fair to say Rafa won his slams in 2010 in a weaker time than Roger or Novak's stand-out years. If as you say it takes an amazing achievement to win 7 matches then Nadal 2010 is equally as brilliant as Roger 2006 and Noavk 2011. I would never diminish what any player won reagardless of who they play. You can only beat who's in front of you. Berdych had also beaten Roger and Novak to get to the Wimbledon final that year, thoroughly deserving of doing so. Djokovic won his first slam against Tsonga but since then his wins have been against Nadal, Murray or Federer. Any player you beat to win slams in the final means just as much if a player is ranked 100 or 1. Nadal's year was just as impressive. Disagree but its hardly fair to denigrate his achievements because of quality of opponent imo.
Djokovic won his slams by beating Nadal 3 times, Roger once, Andy twice and Tsonga. In many of those tournaments he beat more than 1 of the fellow big 4 players. Does that mean he is the GOAT? No. It's impressive, but that doesn't change the numbers. Roger has 17 slam wins. That's unbelievable. Roger and Novak's 2006 and 2011 respectively will go down as the greatest years ever. Is Novak's year better because of who he faced? Not in my book. Also we don't know how many slams the likes of Roddick and Safin would have won without Roger there.
Roger is the GOAT at the minute but imo Rafa could end his career with more. He's 3 behind. What's stopping him adding more. Novak has left it a bit late to win as many as those 2 but no doubt double figures are certainly within reach. Its also a shame to see Roddick only win one slam. He certainly would have won Wimbledon 3 times especially 2009, which was heartbreaking for him. Id have liked him to win more but Roger was just too good for him.
Sorry for the rambling post. But the weak era thing is so uninformed. It's like someone on here saying Novak was poor on grass when he had already had one title. I think they were a Nadal fan too, which makes it funnier seen as he beat him in the final and Nadal has had woeful recent results. But again, I think people are wrong to say he is bad there, at least when concerning the second week! Whoever you like and don't like, you can't argue with numbers and the achievements of these guys is insane
Yet again you are insinuating that a Nadal fan is calling Novak poor on grass, when before this year the records showed its his weakest surface. Nadal may have had woeful results recently but he has reached 5 Wimbledon finals and Novak is on 3, therefore Novak is weaker on grass than Rafa as records show it to be the case. No-one is saying Novak is weak on grass, just that he is weaker on grass than the other surfaces.
Don't know why it has quoted in amongst your post. I hope you understand my post. It might need read carefully as it quoted wrong.
And on some forums, people mentioned about word number ones who were not year nd world number ones and they lumped Hewitt together with Marecllo Rios and others who were world number one but never won a grand slam title .
Also they rubbished Hewitt because he lost a set 6/0 or 6/1 in a set against Federer in a grand slam final, and lumped him in the one slam wonders class of player (as I've said is complete nonsense anyway) as a result. That's pathetic in any case because he won 2 grand slam titles and ended a year as world number one, and they have all lost sets 6/0 or 6/1 in a big grand slam match at some point or another. Losing a set 6/0 or 6/1 does not make them a terrible player. Hewitt won a set as well in that said grand slam final against a peak Federer which was in itself a great achievement at the time so all the rubbishing of Hewitt's performance at the time was pathetic.
Hewitt and Roddick are greater than Berdych and Soderling because Hewitt and Roddick both won grand slam titles while Berdych and Soderling won 0 grand slam titles apiece, and Hewitt and Roddick were fantastic in the early to middle of the 2000 and who knows if it didn't rain in the 2004 Wimbledon final as Roddick was on top v Federer at that point. Roddick also came so close winning the 2009 Wimbledon final as well. People who say Berdych and Soderling are better than Hewitt and Roddick are talking complete nonsense. Berdych and Soderling's career achievements are no match to Hewitt's and Roddick's.
Hewitt, Murray and Kafelnikov have each won 2 grand slam titles which for all 3 is a fantastic achievement. People are only really comparing Hewitt and Murray snd pillorying Hewitt because they are running down and negatively dissecting Federer's achievements.
I don't think anyone would argue Soderling and Berdych are better than Roddick or Hewitt. Not people who watch tennis anyway But I think people who have only started watching tennis recently automatically dismiss players who came before, even though they have no knowledge of what they achieved and didn't even watch them.
It's like the people who insisted Murray would have won more slams if he was in a different era. Not necessarily. There were some exceptionally strong players, like Agassi, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and the list goes on. Who knows what would have come before.
It's kind of like a chicken and egg scenario anyway. Are the big 4 now too good, or are the others not good enough? Is it both? Is Serena just too brilliant, or are there not enough players good enough to challenge her or is it both etc?
I don't think anyone would argue Soderling and Berdych are better than Roddick or Hewitt. Not people who watch tennis anyway But I think people who have only started watching tennis recently automatically dismiss players who came before, even though they have no knowledge of what they achieved and didn't even watch them.
It's like the people who insisted Murray would have won more slams if he was in a different era. Not necessarily. There were some exceptionally strong players, like Agassi, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and the list goes on. Who knows what would have come before.
It's kind of like a chicken and egg scenario anyway. Are the big 4 now too good, or are the others not good enough? Is it both? Is Serena just too brilliant, or are there not enough players good enough to challenge her or is it both etc?
Nobody knows what would have happened, so people saying what would have happened in a match had they met (I.e. where 2 players from 2 different eras never actually met) are basically conjectural results.
I'm nervous for Woz tonight. The way Serena has been playing, I think she might get crushed I would love her to prove me wrong and would be over the moon if she managed to win, but I think it's gonna be a predictable affair.
Why I think Nishikori will beat Cilic to win the US Open crown:
Cilic's reliance on the serve:
This is critical as Cilic does rely on getting a lot of cheap points with his serve, to get him out of sticky situations/positions. He played two guys in Federer and Berdych whom don’t return serve as well as Nishikori and when he did play a guy that was able to defend the serve, he was taken to 5 sets. (Simon) With Nishikori possessing one of the better defensive return of serves on tour it’s going to be mighty difficult for Cilic to leech onto his serve for cheap points when the time calls. Nishikori protects the backhand wing really well, whether it’s when exchanging blows from the baseline or when returning serve, Cilic was able to target the backhand side for both Federer and Berdych when serving, against Nishikori he won’t have as such luxury.
Nishikori’s ability to disguise his shots:
Nishikori’s technique on both his forehand and backhand has a lot of disguise and with his natural ability to change the path/flight/direction of a ball that is coming at him, it makes fairly difficult to anticipate his next shot. This IMO was impart the catalyst to his win over Djokovic, as it left Novak slightly more on the back-foot than he is accustomed to when playing from the baseline. If the king of feet preparation is struggling for time at the baseline, then I can’t imagine how stranded and smothered Cilic will feel and be when this ninja warrior is taking the ball early with little predictability as to where he is going.
Cilic’s inability to recover court position:
Nishikori is world class at manipulating the ball and dragging his opponent all over the court left to right, even when he is being made to move and/ or play on the back-foot. As Cilic is dragged out-wide, he often is sluggish in/at recovering his position to the centre of the baseline, which does mean he will often give away and edge in/of court position. This is particularly critical as Nishikori is not one for predictably going cross-court time after time. (Playing the percentages and relying on easier safety and greater margins to hit into)
Magnitude of the occasion:
If you look back; Nishikori has greater experience in the very big tournaments and has played in and through matches which can cause some serious anxiety (nerves) before and during. He has appeared in a Masters final, almost beating Nadal and not one time did he buckle due to nerves. Instead it was cramp that got him. My point is he never allowed the occasion to over-roar / over-power him. He has more big match experience and for me played two better players' along the way, than compared to Cilic. It's not all about serving big aces and hitting winners, there's a thing in tennis called 'point construction' and Nishikori is incredible adept at it. I believe Cilic is more likely/inclined to throwing in crucial errors at crucial times, simply because he will be tighter than Kei.
I'm not generally a fan of Wozniacki, but after all the crap she got as world #1 and her sh*tty year this year, I'll be rooting for her tonight. She's a nice person too. I think Serena will win in three though. Having steamrolled her her way through the draw without losing a set won't exactly help Serena tonight though.
Another thing about past multiple grand slam champions allegedly had to beat a few fellow multiple grand slam champions to earn each and every grand slam title they won?
Exactly how many fellow multiple grand slam champions did Sampras beat to win some of his Wimbledon titles, and indeed in some of his other grand slam successes away from Wimbledon? I recall Sampras only needing to beat Pioline to win one of his Wimbledon finals and Rusedski to win the US Open final the very same year. I can't recall every result but those 2 grand slams he won just as an example were not exactly packed full of 5 to 8 times grand slam champions he had to beat.
Personally I can't recall that many grand slam fields where Sampras beat a load of champion of champions to win them.
Sampras was far more prone to suffering several big early upsets in his peak period than Federer was in his peak against the same standard of lesser player. Probably Sampras's greater vulnerability than Federer made it seem like he was up against a far more highly competitive field than Federer when there was a number of one time winners in Sampras peak whereas Federer in peak went on to rack up another grand slam title.
Comments
Yes, that's how I see it.
I am not writing off the big 4 off but the days of only the big 4 being capable of making a grand slam final, grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament after grand slam tournament, year after year after year are now gone.
After grand slam tournament (you missed one).
It's very exciting indeed.
The big 4 will probably still take up 4 or 5 of the grand slam final spaces on offer next year. They are still the best overall but their near total supremacy versus allcomers of the rest of the field they held up to last year has come to an end this year.
Seeing 2 non big 4 players contesting a grand slam final is no bad thing.
Such viewpoints are looked on by some as though the big 4 are being written off altogether when that is certainly not the case.
The big 4 are still clearly the best but right now they don't appear to be near invincible against the entire rest of the field like they were up to last year.
To those who have a pop at Federer are those who say he's still playing like he did in 2004 to 2007 and age has nothing to do with his success drying up. It's complete nonsense.
What they mean is Federer only achieved what he did previous decade because he cashed in on a very weak era. The fact that Federer at his age right now has bounced off the ropes and made a Wimbledon final and US Open semi final this year when he seemed for a while last year like not only he would end last year doing well to scrape an end of year world top 10 ranking but also this year do well to avoid falling outside the world's top 20 just shows how great Federer is.
And there is no weak era ever exists in ATP tennis.
I think there is a tendency to say that when one or two dominate for years that it must be a "weak" era, rather than that those one or two were simply outstanding.
In one way you could argue that it was a weaker era in that in the previous ones there tended to be more multi-slam winners for each winner to contend with, so it was harder to get to double figures of slam wins.
But equally you could say in the Fed, Nadal (and later Djok) era that there has been greater depth in the men's game such that it has been harder consistently for players below the big four to get to the later stages of slams.
I have a feeling that Rafa may be due for a loss at the next French. Can't say why. Nothing to do with recent happenings to the big 4. I think just getting to No. 10 will be a psychological hurdle and by now he should be just starting to be less invincible on clay and is due for a surprise.
It's just all a bit pointless, as all these discussions inevitably are, weak, strong eras, unless you can get the Tardis and pluck people and put them in different eras, it's just all subjective guff.
People in all sports, win at the only time they can do, the present. To talk about the ATP or WTA being weaker, nowor then, is all because you generally have or had fave players involved in specific eras.
Basically, the whole weak era thing is made up by people who don't like Roger and can't accept that he was just too good then. He beat lots of top quality players. The people who say this are usually Nadal fans who didn't even watch tennis then. Ridiculous stuff, especially considering he won most of his slams when Nadal was around. There are always strong years and weak years in tennis.
In 2010 the competition was extremely weak, Nadal beat Soderling, Berdych and Djokovic who was playing woeful tennis. Roddick and Hewitt and Safin are tougher than the first two by far. He often didn't have to face any of the top players at all. But then many of his slam wins were against strong competition like Novak or Roger. That's just the way tennis is. The point is, you win a slam by winning 7 matches in a row. So to do that multiple times is impressive, whoever you play. To win 1 slam is amazing, so the one slam wonder critics are wrong.
Djokovic won his slams by beating Nadal 3 times, Roger once, Andy twice and Tsonga. In many of those tournaments he beat more than 1 of the fellow big 4 players. Does that mean he is the GOAT? No. It's impressive, but that doesn't change the numbers. Roger has 17 slam wins. That's unbelievable. Roger and Novak's 2006 and 2011 respectively will go down as the greatest years ever. Is Novak's year better because of who he faced? Not in my book. Also we don't know how many slams the likes of Roddick and Safin would have won without Roger there.
Sorry for the rambling post. But the weak era thing is so uninformed. It's like someone on here saying Novak was poor on grass when he had already had one title. I think they were a Nadal fan too, which makes it funnier seen as he beat him in the final and Nadal has had woeful recent results. But again, I think people are wrong to say he is bad there, at least when concerning the second week! Whoever you like and don't like, you can't argue with numbers and the achievements of these guys is insane
Wow..
The one slam wonders thing is complete nonsense.
And on some forums, people mentioned about word number ones who were not year nd world number ones and they lumped Hewitt together with Marecllo Rios and others who were world number one but never won a grand slam title .
Also they rubbished Hewitt because he lost a set 6/0 or 6/1 in a set against Federer in a grand slam final, and lumped him in the one slam wonders class of player (as I've said is complete nonsense anyway) as a result. That's pathetic in any case because he won 2 grand slam titles and ended a year as world number one, and they have all lost sets 6/0 or 6/1 in a big grand slam match at some point or another. Losing a set 6/0 or 6/1 does not make them a terrible player. Hewitt won a set as well in that said grand slam final against a peak Federer which was in itself a great achievement at the time so all the rubbishing of Hewitt's performance at the time was pathetic.
Hewitt and Roddick are greater than Berdych and Soderling because Hewitt and Roddick both won grand slam titles while Berdych and Soderling won 0 grand slam titles apiece, and Hewitt and Roddick were fantastic in the early to middle of the 2000 and who knows if it didn't rain in the 2004 Wimbledon final as Roddick was on top v Federer at that point. Roddick also came so close winning the 2009 Wimbledon final as well. People who say Berdych and Soderling are better than Hewitt and Roddick are talking complete nonsense. Berdych and Soderling's career achievements are no match to Hewitt's and Roddick's.
Hewitt, Murray and Kafelnikov have each won 2 grand slam titles which for all 3 is a fantastic achievement. People are only really comparing Hewitt and Murray snd pillorying Hewitt because they are running down and negatively dissecting Federer's achievements.
I don't think anyone would argue Soderling and Berdych are better than Roddick or Hewitt. Not people who watch tennis anyway
It's like the people who insisted Murray would have won more slams if he was in a different era. Not necessarily. There were some exceptionally strong players, like Agassi, Sampras, Borg, McEnroe, Lendl and the list goes on. Who knows what would have come before.
It's kind of like a chicken and egg scenario anyway. Are the big 4 now too good, or are the others not good enough? Is it both? Is Serena just too brilliant, or are there not enough players good enough to challenge her or is it both etc?
Nobody knows what would have happened, so people saying what would have happened in a match had they met (I.e. where 2 players from 2 different eras never actually met) are basically conjectural results.
Cilic's reliance on the serve:
This is critical as Cilic does rely on getting a lot of cheap points with his serve, to get him out of sticky situations/positions. He played two guys in Federer and Berdych whom don’t return serve as well as Nishikori and when he did play a guy that was able to defend the serve, he was taken to 5 sets. (Simon) With Nishikori possessing one of the better defensive return of serves on tour it’s going to be mighty difficult for Cilic to leech onto his serve for cheap points when the time calls. Nishikori protects the backhand wing really well, whether it’s when exchanging blows from the baseline or when returning serve, Cilic was able to target the backhand side for both Federer and Berdych when serving, against Nishikori he won’t have as such luxury.
Nishikori’s ability to disguise his shots:
Nishikori’s technique on both his forehand and backhand has a lot of disguise and with his natural ability to change the path/flight/direction of a ball that is coming at him, it makes fairly difficult to anticipate his next shot. This IMO was impart the catalyst to his win over Djokovic, as it left Novak slightly more on the back-foot than he is accustomed to when playing from the baseline. If the king of feet preparation is struggling for time at the baseline, then I can’t imagine how stranded and smothered Cilic will feel and be when this ninja warrior is taking the ball early with little predictability as to where he is going.
Cilic’s inability to recover court position:
Nishikori is world class at manipulating the ball and dragging his opponent all over the court left to right, even when he is being made to move and/ or play on the back-foot. As Cilic is dragged out-wide, he often is sluggish in/at recovering his position to the centre of the baseline, which does mean he will often give away and edge in/of court position. This is particularly critical as Nishikori is not one for predictably going cross-court time after time. (Playing the percentages and relying on easier safety and greater margins to hit into)
Magnitude of the occasion:
If you look back; Nishikori has greater experience in the very big tournaments and has played in and through matches which can cause some serious anxiety (nerves) before and during. He has appeared in a Masters final, almost beating Nadal and not one time did he buckle due to nerves. Instead it was cramp that got him. My point is he never allowed the occasion to over-roar / over-power him. He has more big match experience and for me played two better players' along the way, than compared to Cilic. It's not all about serving big aces and hitting winners, there's a thing in tennis called 'point construction' and Nishikori is incredible adept at it. I believe Cilic is more likely/inclined to throwing in crucial errors at crucial times, simply because he will be tighter than Kei.
Prediction: Kei Nishikori in 4 sets.
Nishikori at 1.88 with Pinnacle
Exactly how many fellow multiple grand slam champions did Sampras beat to win some of his Wimbledon titles, and indeed in some of his other grand slam successes away from Wimbledon? I recall Sampras only needing to beat Pioline to win one of his Wimbledon finals and Rusedski to win the US Open final the very same year. I can't recall every result but those 2 grand slams he won just as an example were not exactly packed full of 5 to 8 times grand slam champions he had to beat.
Personally I can't recall that many grand slam fields where Sampras beat a load of champion of champions to win them.
Sampras was far more prone to suffering several big early upsets in his peak period than Federer was in his peak against the same standard of lesser player. Probably Sampras's greater vulnerability than Federer made it seem like he was up against a far more highly competitive field than Federer when there was a number of one time winners in Sampras peak whereas Federer in peak went on to rack up another grand slam title.
Think she needs red shoes to go with the head band and wrist band.
Noticed that the lady behind Serena's chair who was taking multiple photos is wearing the same dress as her.
Erm.... it's a look that's for sure. My general dislike of animal print doesn't help.