As expected . U fail to see that nadull is part of Feds generation . And federer played him in 05/06. He won on all surface. Nadull entered his Prime in 2007.
So u cannot put nadull in a SEPERATE group because he is Feds main rival. U can't see that then what is the point discussing with u. AGAIN Nadull played in Feds era. Gosh. His simplistic game is more applicable when he is young.
Nadull is an early bloomer. Just like Borg won a slam 18 multiple champion n finalist by 21 . Do u hear anyone young Borg. Becker/ wilander/ Chang/ Hewitt all won slams some multiple before 21 years old they are not young.
That's the concept to cannot grasp. So he is Feds rival during his dominant period.
So if u split nadull in 2 . U are saying old / injury prone nadull greater than young nadull.
Bring up rafter. Is irrelevant as fed has a different game to nadull, rafter played fed in his first ever match. Should I bring up how nadull lost to Blake/ Roddick etc no its irrelevant.
So everyone knows nadull is greater than Gonzalez etc. so what he is Feds rival. Feds career encompassed his entire career most likely.
Murray u say is better that Roddick/ ferrero/ Agassi/Safin/ hewitt. All of them has slams Murray does not.
Is Murray greater than Gonzalez /baghdatis etc. in terms of results so what. Fed beat him and nadull won against Soderling/ Berdych. Similiar in career to Baghdatis and Gonzalez as I already pointed out. So he is better than Feds second tier competition.
Novak . Feds rivals Safin/ Hewitt/ 2003 Agassi than glutinous Novak.
Gluten free Novak has accomplished more. However old fed could still take him down.unsure if he would have discovered his *allergy* winke winke back in those days. Against a faster courts and servers and flat hitters.
That take time "away" to make his FH susceptible .
Roddick has a superior h2h in his old age. PRIME Roddick on faster court I would give the edge.
I've already included Nadal as one of the few players actually having the level to challenge Federer and doing it early as a teenager.
The rest of the field was a joke apart from Safin.
The counter to your argument is that a 31 year old Federer is #1 in the prime years of Nadal, Novak and Murray. So whether it's Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt or Nadal/Novak/Murray, he's still #1. If you say it that way, gosh, at least Roddick/Gonzalez/Hewitt had the excuse that Federer was in his prime. What excuse do Nadal/Novak/Murray have to allow a 31 year old, past prime, married with 2 kids (because we all know from past history that marriage and kids are a death knoll to a tennis player) who should be lacking motivation and drive because he's won everything to be sitting at #1. Shame on them.
Shame on them indeed. They should learn from Federer and play the occasional mug tournament to earn cheap points.
Mahut + Walkover against Youzhny + Niemenen + Davydenko + Delpo = 500 hard earned points from Federer.
Where was number 1 Federer at the Olympics? Getting thrashed by Murray.
Don't be ridiculous. My memory is excellent, if you're trying to hit a nerve you're barking up the wrong tree. You were talking about beating top players in title defences, not on the way to losing finals, and you did not qualify your statement with "mostly". Also, Djokovic never faced either Federer nor Nadal in Miami. So saying he beat top players, in plural, means you are counting as a top player...Ferrer, perhaps?
It didn't matter how I qualified my statement because it was true either way that he beat top players this year regardless.
You were the one sinking to a new low by singling out Toronto while being fully aware that he had beaten the top 4 including Federer.
I'm counting all matches versus the top four. Whether or not he faced only 1 top player in Miami because Federer was too busy losing to Roddick isn't relevant to the point that to actually win the title, he had to beat a top player.