Thiem routs Joker 76 63 60!

[StephenJ]

What a result ... Joker adrift. :(

[Whisper]

On 7/06/2017 9:29 PM, StephenJ wrote:
> What a result ... Joker adrift. :(
>

Yes, amazing how things change. After he won FO last yr he was, imo,
just 2 or 3 slam wins (ie 6 months or so) from having a legit claim to
goat status. He coulda completed a modern calendar slam, 7 slam wins in
a row (all time record in men or women's game), 7 AO titles etc.

He's gone from holding all 4 slams to 0.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Court_1]

Good riddance to Pipe Cleaner I say!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)

[Court_1]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 7:34:27 AM UTC-4, Whisper wrote:
> On 7/06/2017 9:29 PM, StephenJ wrote:
> > What a result ... Joker adrift. :(
> >
>
> Yes, amazing how things change. After he won FO last yr he was, imo,
> just 2 or 3 slam wins (ie 6 months or so) from having a legit claim to
> goat status. He coulda completed a modern calendar slam, 7 slam wins in
> a row (all time record in men or women's game), 7 AO titles etc.
>
> He's gone from holding all 4 slams to 0.

He had no legit claim to GOAT status. He wasn't going to surpass Fed by winning six-seven more slams at age 30. That just doesn't happen. If he gets himself together again, he may be able to win two more or so. That's it. He probably won't surpass Nadal let alone Federer. Federer's slam record is off the menu for him.

[Patrick Kehoe]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:45:47 AM UTC-7, Court_1 wrote:
> Good riddance to Pipe Cleaner I say!
>
> Don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)

:))))))))))))))))))))))

P

[stephenJ]

On 6/7/2017 6:45 AM, Court_1 wrote:
> Good riddance to Pipe Cleaner I say!
>
> Don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
>

Not sure I understand the joker enmity. He's not my favorite, I root for
both Fed and Nadal against him, but I have nothing against him and when
he wins it doesn't bother me at all. Why not? He's never done anything
to merit dislike.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[Guypers]

No problems here with Novak, great player, won his slams fair and square beating Fed and Rafa!

[stephenJ]

Yes, he's won 12 slams against arguably the most withering competition
at the top ever. And he's done it without having a lock-down fortress
like Nadal has at the FO. At least since Borg/Connors/Mac circa 1980.

Fed had won 9-10 slams before Joker showed up, Nadal several as well,
but he's had to battle those guys, and Murray, his whole career.

[*skriptis]

stephenJ <sja...@cox.net> Wrote in message:

> On 6/7/2017 6:45 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>> Good riddance to Pipe Cleaner I say!
>>
>> Don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
>>
>
> Not sure I understand the joker enmity. He's not my favorite, I root for
> both Fed and Nadal against him, but I have nothing against him and when
> he wins it doesn't bother me at all. Why not? He's never done anything
> to merit dislike.

Agreed. He's done some things that won't earn him many fans. E.g.
boring game, being too needy of acceptance. But that's not enough
to hate him. A player has to be a real ass to deserve hatred.


On a plus size, he surpassed Federer and Nadal in boat terms,
achieved some majestic stuff, so he deserves respect for that.


Those who viciously hate him, are mostly fedfuckers, nadalfuckers
or worse.



--

[heyg...@gmail.com]

True, but Djok also won nearly all his slams after Fed hit the same point in his career where Djok is now (decline after turning 29).

[*skriptis]

heyg...@gmail.com Wrote in message:

There's tennis beyond Federer you know?
--

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 2:01:01 PM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:

> True, but Djok also won nearly all his slams after Fed hit the same point in his career where Djok is now (decline after turning 29).

But he did beat Fed in 2008 at the AO and then also beat Nadal in his prime in 3 slam F's during 2011/2012. Nadal was still in his prime then. He went back and forth a bit with Nadal from 2013-2015, but his results in 2011/2012 do count against prime Nadal.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Djok has had his chances. Before this year he and Nadal had made the same number of slam finals...he just wasn't as good as Nadal at winning them.

[Shakes]

On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 6:36:07 PM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
> Djok has had his chances. Before this year he and Nadal had made the same number of slam finals...he just wasn't as good as Nadal at winning them.

Yes, until 2011 he wasn't as good as winning slam F's. But he still beat peak Nadal in 2011/2012. You can try and discount his victories over Fed but not Nadal given that they are roughly of the same age.

[Court_1]

I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic a hundred times on this ng. I respect his accomplishments and his fighting spirit (although that wasn't on display in his match vs Thiem where Djokovic obviously and pathetically tanked the third set) but I dislike his game, his on court outbursts where he abuses ball kids regularly, he swears at the crowd in Serbian, he breaks his rackets, he does classless things like rip his shirt off like an animal, etc.

I find him very fake and too insecure when it comes to wanting crowd approval. Probably even worse than all of these things are some of his batshit crazy Nole Family fans although I know that crazy fans exist in all fan groups. They attack everybody relentlessly on social media if you say one good thing about another player and not Djokovic.

So yes I respect his achievements but he's dominated for four years and I for one am not broken up about seeing him lose. As fans we've all had to deal with our favorite players hitting a brick wall as they age. I'm sure he'll figure things out and make some sort of reappearance where he can win a few more big titles. But he isn't going on to surpass Fed's record. It's too late for that. A 30 year old player is not going to win 7 more slams. If Nadal wins the FO title on Sunday, I doubt Djokovic will be able to surpass him.

[TT]

sushru...@gmail.com kirjoitti 8.6.2017 klo 8:04:

> I'd say Djoker has a better claim to GOAT status than Rafa if he gets to 14.
> He has a better slam distribution, far more weeks at #1, a longer reign at #1,
> multiple YEC championships etc. Rafa's 50/70 clay titles make him look like
> a one-trick pony no matter which angle you look at it from.
>

"Slam distribution" is bullshit. Just another way of trying to deny that
Rafa would own the greatest record in tennis ever. One can not do
something remarkable with good 'distribution'. You sir do not understand
sports records at all.

[TT]

Tilden won his first slam at 27, last at 37.
Rosewall won his first at 18, last at 36.

Age is no excuse.

[TT]

Shakes kirjoitti 8.6.2017 klo 3:20:
> But he did beat Fed in 2008 at the AO

And would have probably had his career best year if Rafa would not have
crushed his psyche at RG and finished off the wreck at Wimbledon.

[TT]

Peak Djokovic against mentally beaten Nadal:

2012 Monte Carlo Masters Clay Final Nadal
2012 Rome Masters Clay Final Nadal
2012 Roland Garros Major Clay Final Nadal
2013 Monte Carlo Masters Clay Final Djokovic
2013 Roland Garros Major Clay Semifinal Nadal
2013 Canada Masters Hard Semifinal Nadal
2013 US Open Major Hard Final Nadal

[TT]

*skriptis kirjoitti 7.6.2017 klo 23:14:
> On a plus size, he surpassed Federer and Nadal in boat terms,

Sure... the guy finally managed to win RG because Rafa was playing crap
- and after that title Djokovic never touched a tennis racket. What a
legend.

[Pelle Svanslös]

They reflect what we see every day. Rafa's great on clay, a sucker on
other surfaces.

That's another way of writing: 1 trick pony.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 8.6.2017 6:33, Court_1 wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:21:22 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>> On 6/7/2017 3:11 PM, Guypers wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, June 7, 2017 at 4:08:03 PM UTC-4, StephenJ wrote:
>>>> On 6/7/2017 6:45 AM, Court_1 wrote:
>>>>> Good riddance to Pipe Cleaner I say!
>>>>>
>>>>> Don't let the door hit you on the way out! :)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not sure I understand the joker enmity. He's not my favorite, I root for
>>>> both Fed and Nadal against him, but I have nothing against him and when
>>>> he wins it doesn't bother me at all. Why not? He's never done anything
>>>> to merit dislike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
>>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
>>>
>>>
>>> No problems here with Novak, great player, won his slams fair and square beating Fed and Rafa!
>>
>> Yes, he's won 12 slams against arguably the most withering competition
>> at the top ever. And he's done it without having a lock-down fortress
>> like Nadal has at the FO. At least since Borg/Connors/Mac circa 1980.
>>
>> Fed had won 9-10 slams before Joker showed up, Nadal several as well,
>> but he's had to battle those guys, and Murray, his whole career.
>
> I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic

Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at one point
he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam record.

[Court_1]

It has absolutely nothing to do with Federer. I like Nadal and he has always been the biggest threat to Federer. Also, Djokovic was NEVER the biggest threat to Federer at any point. Only fools like yourself believed that. Djokovic screwed up at too many slams in his prime for him to have ever been a legit threat to Fed's slam record.

I dislike Djokovic for the reasons I have outlined.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 8.6.2017 12:48, Court_1 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:41:13 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 8.6.2017 6:33, Court_1 wrote:
>
>>> I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic
>>
>> Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at one
>> point he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam record.
>
> It has absolutely nothing to do with Federer.

*Rolls eyes* Lol.

> I like Nadal and he has
> always been the biggest threat to Federer.

Things looked a bit different a year or two ago.

Also, Djokovic was NEVER
> the biggest threat to Federer at any point. Only fools like yourself
> believed that.

Not true. I'm on record on that too. Of course you would have to do the
searching yourself.

[Court_1]

Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer and I like Nadal. Djokovic lost too many slams at his peak to have ever been a serious threat to Federer no matter how well Djokovic did from 2014-2016. Thus, your theory that I dislike Djokovic because he was a threat to Federer is ridiculous. I dislike Djokovic because he's trashy and often obnoxious.

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 8.6.2017 13:46, Court_1 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 6:13:19 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>> On 8.6.2017 12:48, Court_1 wrote:
>>> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 4:41:13 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös
>>> wrote:
>>>> On 8.6.2017 6:33, Court_1 wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I've stated my reasons for disliking Djokovic
>>>>
>>>> Everything boils down to fedfuckery. You hate him because at
>>>> one point he represented the biggest threat to Rogi's slam
>>>> record.
>>>
>>> It has absolutely nothing to do with Federer.
>>
>> *Rolls eyes* Lol.
>>
>>> I like Nadal and he has always been the biggest threat to
>>> Federer.
>>
>> Things looked a bit different a year or two ago.
>>
>> Also, Djokovic was NEVER
>>> the biggest threat to Federer at any point. Only fools like
>>> yourself believed that.
>>
>> Not true. I'm on record on that too. Of course you would have to do
>> the searching yourself.
>
> Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer

Not true. Not long ago Djok was winning NCYGSs and Rafa had problems
getting to 2nd round.

Rafa at that point can not have been considered a bigger threat. Anybody
who dismisses this is rewriting history.

That's when your boots started shaking. The rest is just the usual
"reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit bucket.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:03:01 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:

> > Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer
>
> Not true. Not long ago Djok was winning NCYGSs and Rafa had problems
> getting to 2nd round.
>
> Rafa at that point can not have been considered a bigger threat. Anybody
> who dismisses this is rewriting history.
>
> That's when your boots started shaking. The rest is just the usual
> "reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit bucket.

Please don't tell me what I thought. I have never been a Djokovic fan from day one and everybody on RST seems to realize that except you. Even when he won the NCYGS I was stating on this ng that he would fall off soon. No ATG player who dominates for five years continues in that fashion when he is 30+. If you couldn't see a crash was coming that's not my problem.

IMO he was never a threat to Fed's slam record. He was too far behind and should have won more slams in his prime. He lost too many to Nadal/Murray/Wawrinka. He's the Lendl of his generation.

I like Nadal and will continue to like Nadal even if he somehow manages to surpass Fed's slam record.

Go try and enjoy RG now that your demigod Porcupine is gone and your second fave, that useless Nishikori, is out. I know you like Thiem too but his time at RG is coming to an end for 2017.

You are left with Nadal winning it(which means Djokovic will likely never surpass him) or probably Wawrinka who has been your hero Djokovic's daddy at the slams the past couple of years! Enjoy putz! :)

[Pelle Svanslös]

On 8.6.2017 14:16, Court_1 wrote:
> On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 7:03:01 AM UTC-4, Pelle Svanslös wrote:
>
>>> Nadal has always been the bigger threat to Federer
>>
>> Not true. Not long ago Djok was winning NCYGSs and Rafa had
>> problems getting to 2nd round.
>>
>> Rafa at that point can not have been considered a bigger threat.
>> Anybody who dismisses this is rewriting history.
>>
>> That's when your boots started shaking. The rest is just the usual
>> "reinforcement of beliefs" BS. Inconsequential, destined to the bit
>> bucket.
>
> Please don't tell me what I thought.

Why not? I'm telling the truth. I first saw the fedfucking boots quiver,
then the seething. The rest is obvious.

> Even when he won the NCYGS I was stating on this ng that he would
> fall off soon.

Even you predicted his slam win rate would slow down. Not that it would
stop completely. Ergo, with a NCYGS in his pocket and a couple of more,
he's the biggest threat to Rogi's GOAThood.

Just recall how Rafa wet his bed when he had the NCYGS on the line.
*Rolls eyes*

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Yes Nadal did great. But.

Federer was in 10 straight gs finals from 05-07. And Djokovic
stopped him at AO 08 from making it 11.

Only after that, after Federer lost one of his grounds (AO, a
lesser one to be fair) to Djokovic, has Nadal managed to dethrone
Federer at Wimbledon.

Sure, he was always ahead on clay, but from present point of view,
it looks as if Djokovic had softened Federer and made furst
intrusion into his realms. Not Nadal.

Federer later went on to make another 7 consecutive GS finals, and
again, the man to stop him was Djokovic at AO 11.



Maybe that AO 08 dethroning by Djokovic was pivotal in crushing
Federer's confidence to deal with non clown challengers from that
point onwards. You had FO collapse later, and that Wim
match.

So I'm saying, if you make it some confidence/crushing issue,
focusing on FO, but omitting Djokovic's AO 08 is totally
misleading.

After all we've seen what happens when non scared Federer takes on
Nadal, AO 17. The great man always has a chance. Assuming he's
not shitting his pants.



--

[*skriptis]

TT <as...@dprk.kp> Wrote in message:

Well a NCYGS is definitely a bigger claim for boathood over little
slam (FO-WIM-USO).

It's a no brainer. 4>3 and Djokovic's opponents were more
respectable anyway, Federer 2x and Murray 2x and YEC thrown in
between, vs Rafa's little slam done vs Soderling, Berdcyh and one
slammer Djokovic at the time? Yeah.

How about record ATP points? It means his peak = highest peak.
Record ELO too, so different approach, gives same result.

Even his match winning streak (the one in 2011 and stopped by
Federer) is longer/better than overall streaks done by Nadal or
Federer.

He bested them in peak/boat matters. Fact.

Nadal's clay peak is better though. And he's clay goat.

I see you've one of those who can't be rational and admit certain
things when you dislike them. It's ok when we clash our opinions,
e.g. peak Federer vs peak Sampras in Wimbledon, who'd win etc. I
can understand that. Similar numbers, etc, it boils down to our
preferences.


But when you have clear numbers and it's telling you of someone's
superiority, and you go denying that? E.g. Nadal vs Borg at FO. I
can't understand that.




--

[heyg...@gmail.com]

All his wins against Nadal are legit. Though Djok's slam final win rate 2011 and after is the same as Nadal's full career slam final win percentage and less than Fed's full career slam final win percentage. Even at his best Djok hasn't been as good as Fed's career average when it comes to slam finals.

[heyg...@gmail.com]

What's the value in being BOAT if it doesn't show up in slam finals, where it counts. During Djok's best years, 2011-2016, he won 61% of his slam finals (11 of 18). Fed's at 64% for his whole career (71% during his 2004-2010 run).

[*skriptis]

heyg...@gmail.com Wrote in message:

That's not my point. And boat isn't about longevity.

Federer is greater because he has won more, but even his records
suggest he has advantage in longevity/consistency department, not
in peak excellence. Take a look at their #1 records.


237 consecutive weeks at #1 vs most ATP points ever? Both are
records, but of different sort.

Boat matters and people think in those terms, people were already
claiming Nadal was *better* than Borg even back after that FO 08,
and when he was at 4, 5 FO titles, let alone 6.

Likewise, CYGS is a big deal because it showcases your dominance
across the field and in one season. Not all slams won can be WoO
slams in that case. Less chance for it. So it's the usual 4 slams
+ lot of BOAT claim.

I think it matters. But you're free to claim BOAT is absolutely
meaningless and even nonexistent (even though I find it more
tangible than the title of "aesthetically pleasing style and most
gracious player ever").





--

[heyg...@gmail.com]

What's the minimum period of time for evaluating top level? One year? That's definitely an important metric. Best level in a year doesn't necessarily equal BOAT for me, though, as too many factors can be at play (eg, Djok's NCYGS happened with Fed and Nadal both AWOL). I think 3 or 5 years is a better timeframe for assessing top level/BOAT.

[Carey]

Djok is the male Chris Evert. Ugh.

Nothing personal, just don't care for *guys* playing like that.

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 11:10:52 AM UTC-4, Carey wrote:
> Djok is the male Chris Evert. Ugh.
>
> Nothing personal, just don't care for *guys* playing like that.

Djokovic wishes he were the male Chris Evert. Evert has six more slams and is the stand alone female CLAY goat. Outside of the huge cash discrepancy, I would take Evert's career over Djokovic's any day.

A better comparison would be that Djokovic is the Lendl of today.

[soccerfan777]

Lendl had a monster forehand and powerful single handed backhand. Lendl hit his shots deep, Djoker indulges in way too many mid-court rallies. I have no idea why you think Djoker is Lendl like. Djoker is more like Hewitt but just better in all respects.

[Court_1]

I mean in terms of number of slam finals lost and lack of popularity. Also, both were boring to watch. Watching grass grow was more exciting.

[*skriptis]

*Fedfucker alert*
Haha

Federer awol, who was making Wimbledon final without losing a set
and making USO final without losing a serve? That's
awol?

Also winning Cincinnati before USO, without losing a serve too, I
believe, and beating Djokovic there, also beating him 3 times
that season and being #2 the whole time, and losing to eventual
champions at FO 15, Wawrinka, and at Wim, USO, YEC, and AO 16 to
Djokovic, that's an entire year where championship matches were
decided with him on the court?

Awol?
What's more to say? Incredible.



Nadal, yes, was awol in 2015, but Djokovic hasn't won that FO anyway.

In 2016 Nadal has won Monte Carlo, Barcelona, just as he did in
2017, and lost to two hot players in Rome/Madrid, Murray,
Djokovic, whereas this year he lost to just one such player,
Thiem in Rome. He's marginally better this year, result wise.
And those guys Thiem, Goffin, he met this year are less
experienced so maybe that's why they failed to beat him twice
like Murray and Djokovic did last year.

So there was nothing wrong with his clay form in 2016, it's the
fact he injured himself at FO last year that made a difference.
But is that awol?

Even if you want to look at it as a freebie, with that "gifted" FO
Djokovic did pull out 4 consecutive slams, at the age of 28-29.


What has Federer done with such FO freebie at the age of 28-29?

Failed to win NCYGS by losing to delpo in New York. FO-Wim-delpo-A0 10


No, 3 out of 5 seasons makes no sense. Peak is peak. Even a single
season, is something long and counterintuitive of the whole peak
concept. But 52 week time frame is the shortest unit for
evaluating #1, so it makes sense.





--

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Yes, you're right about Fed not being AWOL...just years past peak (which if a year is the preferred timeframe for determining peak level, then there can be no debate Fed's peak ended 2010ish). Of course players can still play well and have hot tournaments past peak.

[*skriptis]

I thought we were discussing Djokovic's peak, not Federer's?


--

[*skriptis]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Djokovic's record is 12-9 and he won NCYGS.
Lendl was 8-11 in slam finals and never won biggest title.
In the meantime, Murray has 3-8 record in GS finals.


The fact someone doesn't like, or doesn't enjoy watching certain
player, doesn't mean he should make a fool out of himself with
braindead analyses like you constantly do.







--

[heyg...@gmail.com]

Relevant to Djok's best 52-week achievement, ie, his BOAT claim. Nadal was AWOL and Fed was 5 years past peak.

[Shakes]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 9:39:15 AM UTC-7, heyg...@gmail.com wrote:
-
>
> Yes, you're right about Fed not being AWOL...just years past peak (which if a year is the preferred timeframe for determining peak level, then there can be no debate Fed's peak ended 2010ish). Of course players can still play well and have hot tournaments past peak.

Well, when I look at Djok, I think that sometimes things balance out. When Djok came on to the scene, he faced a much tougher challenge than either Fed or Nadal. He had to face both when they were in their prime. He got compensation for that from 2014-2016.

[*skriptis]

Shakes <kvcs...@gmail.com> Wrote in message:

Yes, but no so different from what Fed had in 2009.

Winning FO against Soderling, Wimbledon against Roddick, losing
USO against del Potro and YEC against Davydenko, winning AO vs
Murray. No NCYGS there. Same age as Djokovic in 2015-16.





--

[*skriptis]

So?

Mind you, fed got same freebie FO title at the age 28-29 like
Djokovic.
So why wasn't Federer at peak age 28 in 09 like Djokovic was at
the same age and won everything else?

Hm.


--

[Court_1]

On Thursday, June 8, 2017 at 2:30:03 PM UTC-4, *skriptis wrote:

>

> Djokovic's record is 12-9 and he won NCYGS.
> Lendl was 8-11 in slam finals and never won biggest title.
> In the meantime, Murray has 3-8 record in GS finals.
>
>
> The fact someone doesn't like, or doesn't enjoy watching certain
> player, doesn't mean he should make a fool out of himself with
> braindead analyses like you constantly do.

Listen you despicable freak, normally I don't read any of your posts and if I do read them I quickly bleach my eyes and forget them but once in a while I will read a post of yours and feel the need to answer you.

Murray is not an ATG so forget about him in the comparison. Djokovic is 12-9 in slam finals, Federer is 18-10 and Nadal is 14-7. Clearly, Djokovic is behind those two in that category and has lost way too many slam finals in his prime that he should have won. He is the closest thing to Lendl there is out of the Big Three in this generation both in slam final stats and in his lack of popularity.

Now I'll resume my usual occurrence of ignoring your posts.

[undecided]

> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Not sure I understand the joker enmity. He's not my favorite, I root for
> >>>> both Fed and Nadal against him, but I have nothing against him and when
> >>>> he wins it doesn't bother me at all. Why not? He's never done anything
> >>>> to merit dislike.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> >>>> https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> No problems here with Novak, great player, won his slams fair and square beating Fed and Rafa!
> >>
> >> Yes, he's won 12 slams against arguably the most withering competition
> >> at the top ever. And he's done it without having a lock-down fortress
> >> like Nadal has at the FO. At least since Borg/Connors/Mac circa 1980.
> >>
> >> Fed had won 9-10 slams before Joker showed up, Nadal several as well,
> >> but he's had to battle those guys, and Murray, his whole career.
> >
> > True, but Djok also won nearly all his slams after Fed hit the same point in his career where Djok is now (decline after turning 29).
> >
>
> Tilden won his first slam at 27, last at 37.
> Rosewall won his first at 18, last at 36.
>
> Age is no excuse.

Let's not write Djoker off yet. Fed came back from a long slump and Rafa has as well. If Djoker is a true champ (12 slams says so) then we should expect a resurgence at some point.

[*skriptis]

Court_1 <olymp...@yahoo.com> Wrote in message:

Nobody cares what you read or don't read. People are simply not
interested in that info.

Your posts are of low quality even when on topic, so you should
really try hard not to downgrade quality of your posts even
further by posting off topic subjective rants and insults.




So, on topic. Murray is not an ATG so we should forget him?

I know logic is not something you're good at, but you do realize
that by using your criteria, if Djokovic had lost *8* more
finals, and had 4-17 record, he wouldn't be on your list at all,
not being ATG, at the same being far worse than Lendl in that
case.

Likewise, Murray made more finals than Becker and same number of
finals as Edberg, and could even surpass Edberg today. So if he
wins couple of finals from now on and improves from 3-8 to 7-8
he'd be deserved to rank low, but not now with 3-8?

Are you even aware how dumb that is?

If the point is to measure slam wins/finals conversion then it's
the number of finals that count. And Murray with 11 or even 12
finals belongs there, that's those only couple of behind McEnroe,
Agassi, Connors, Borg and they're all within his reach.




Or, if you really want to compare only true ATGs, then there's no
place for Murray, I agree, but also no place for Lendl as well.
Why do you invoke Lendl to compare him with Djokovic? Neither
Murray nor Lendl is tier 1. You just can't use logical and
consistent criteria.


If you go with this, the only guys you could compare Djokovic
with, are Nadal, Federer, Sampras and Borg.

Just say Djokovic has the worst slam finals conversion of any tier
1 candidate. That's fine.

Ups, Borg lost 4 USO finals and never won there. And Sampras never
won or even reached FO final. So even though he's behind them
statistically, his record in slam finals is less shallow.


He's either 5th or 3rd among these 5 guys in this metric. But his
position based on silverware he's won so far is 4th place anyway
so he's there where he's supposed to be.













--

[Guypers]

Good points!