Now can we say "big 5" instead of "big 4"? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Now can we say "big 5" instead of "big 4"?

Athletics1982
05-15-2009, 11:10 PM
After this victory, JMDP won Rafa in Miami and Murray in Madrid, and he goes to 2 SF and 2 QF this year, also QF in AUS Open.

Now do you think JMDP is the big 5? discuss.

El Legenda
05-15-2009, 11:11 PM
:haha: how about the BIG 6...since Ljubo Legenda beat JMDP(on clay) and 3 more wins vs Top 10 players this year.

Cloudygirl
05-15-2009, 11:11 PM
Nope he beat Murray on clay and Nadal having a one time only brain fart.

Titi
05-15-2009, 11:12 PM
He's getting there but still a bit to go.

pica_pica
05-15-2009, 11:13 PM
Not yet. But if he's closer in terms of ranking points and he keeps beating the other four at such frequency, then we may say big 5.

Sunset of Age
05-15-2009, 11:13 PM
DelPo Bandwagon already finding steam. :rocker2:

Dini
05-15-2009, 11:13 PM
No. Not yet. He'll need to win big titles and run to the SF stages or deeper in slams consistently to join that group.

groundstroke
05-15-2009, 11:13 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

finishingmove
05-15-2009, 11:14 PM
:haha: how about the BIG 6...since Ljubo Legenda beat JMDP(on clay) and 3 more wins vs Top 10 players this year.

magnificent 7 with verdasco.

LocoPorElTenis
05-15-2009, 11:14 PM
Del Potro is still far from the top 4, but getting clear of the field below him.

born_on_clay
05-15-2009, 11:14 PM
Jesus Christ
Before writing such a bullshit look into the ranking points and think your question over once more
To start with there is no "big 4" - there is Rafa the best player on the planet and the big chasing trio
del Potro is just consistent player. Unless he wins at least MS Shield beating in final someone from the top 4 the will stay an average player for me

LocoPorElTenis
05-15-2009, 11:15 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

Fed winning 13 GS is almost irrelevant. Sampras won 14 GS, so I guess Nadal, Fed and Sampras are the big 3?

Byrd
05-15-2009, 11:15 PM
Nah he needs to beat Hernandez and do the Subway foot long challenge before he gets into the equation.

shotgun
05-15-2009, 11:15 PM
Expected thread.

He needs to get wins over Federer and Djokovic, and reach a Slam final (or a couple of Slam semis) to be included in this group. For now, he's just the best of the rest.

LocoPorElTenis
05-15-2009, 11:16 PM
Jesus Christ
Before writing such a bullshit look into the ranking points and think your question over once more
To start with there is no "big 4" - there is Rafa the best player on the planet and the big chasing trio
del Potro is just consisten player. Unless he wins at least MS Shield beating in filan someone from the top 4 the will stay an average player for me

Number 5 player = average player --------> gloryhunter

rocketassist
05-15-2009, 11:16 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

If we follow your funny little logic then Safin and Hewitt are ahead of Djokovic.

It's a big two, then the next two around the same. Then Del Potro and Rodduck.

Putting Simon in there shows you up a bit, mon.

El Legenda
05-15-2009, 11:16 PM
magnificent 7 with verdasco.

well with Roddick winning a match on clay...its really the Elite 8

Argenbrit
05-15-2009, 11:17 PM
Probably a bit too soon for that.
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam
Agreed.

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:17 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

Oh, so Fed can still be grouped with Rafa? Get a grip. Fed is hanging onto his number 2 rank by the skin of his teeth. You're making an early break for ACC top seed.

born_on_clay
05-15-2009, 11:17 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

holy word !

FedFan_2007
05-15-2009, 11:17 PM
Jesus Christ
Before writing such a bullshit look into the ranking points and think your question over once more
To start with there is no "big 4" - there is Rafa the best player on the planet and the big chasing trio
del Potro is just consistent player. Unless he wins at least MS Shield beating in final someone from the top 4 the will stay an average player for me

It's true that ATM Roger is part of the chasing trio, but you don't give enough respect to 13-time slam champ. GIVE RESPECT DAMMIT!!!

sammy01
05-15-2009, 11:17 PM
oh fuck it, lets just call it 'the big orgy' or ATP as some have come to know it as lol

scoobs
05-15-2009, 11:18 PM
I really think it's the Big 2873 - all the players who have a ranking - after all on any given day any one player can beat any other player so.... :shrug:

Argenbrit
05-15-2009, 11:18 PM
To start with there is no "big 4" - there is Rafa the best player on the planet and the big chasing trio and del Potro is just consistent player.
Affirmative. ;)

«Ivan»
05-15-2009, 11:19 PM
it's still big 3,murray 'n delpo are in top 10.

groundstroke
05-15-2009, 11:19 PM
Oh, so Fed can still be grouped with Rafa? Get a grip. Fed is hanging onto his number 2 rank by the skin of his teeth. You're making an early break for ACC top seed.

It is true, Federer hasn't even a Masters since Cincinnati 2007 and he faced James Flake in the final...

But do you want to admit that Nadal is having total domination and no one can stop? I certainly don't. :)

finishingmove
05-15-2009, 11:19 PM
I really think it's the Big 2873 - all the players who have a ranking - after all on any given day any one player can beat any other player so.... :shrug:

who lets trolls like you post here

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:20 PM
it's still big 3,murray 'n delpo are in top 10.

Murray's ranked 3rd, so how can he be below the top 3? You're not very bright.

born_on_clay
05-15-2009, 11:21 PM
It's true that ATM Roger is part of the chasing trio, but you don't give enough respect to 13-time slam champ. GIVE RESPECT DAMMIT!!!

It's not about respect. It's about the ranking points for today.
Belevie me - I respect Roger. He's is one of the best palyer in the history of tennis but for today he's a part of chasing trio... let's face it

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:21 PM
It is true, Federer hasn't even a Masters since Cincinnati 2007 and he faced James Flake in the final...

But do you want to admit that Nadal is having total domination and no one can stop? I certainly don't. :)

No one can stop him on clay. He's far from unbeatable on hard. Grass? Remains to be seen. I don't mind conceding inconvenient truths. Rafa is dominating. I'm not about to deny that just because it doesn't make me feel good.

jenanun
05-15-2009, 11:22 PM
yes if he wins the title in madrid

Roddickominator
05-15-2009, 11:22 PM
Slow your roll. You aren't in the "Big" anything until you win a GS.

Athletics1982
05-15-2009, 11:25 PM
Well, I remembered just after US Open last year, Murray just joins the "Big 4" club, and far from "Big 3", and now Murray become No.3. Maybe just after several mouths, Del Porto will closer to "Big 4" in ranking points, but at least his results this year is not bad.

groundstroke
05-15-2009, 11:26 PM
No one can stop him on clay. He's far from unbeatable on hard. Grass? Remains to be seen. I don't mind conceding inconvenient truths. Rafa is dominating. I'm not about to deny that just because it doesn't make me feel good.

As long as the right style of play is given I don't mind admitting to anything, but Nadal plays repulsive tennis and has a repulsive character, same with Murray and Djokovic. Hence why I like Federer most compared to the 3.

How can Murray be in the Big anything, when he hasn't even won a Grand Slam?!

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:29 PM
As long as the right style of play is given I don't mind admitting to anything, but Nadal plays repulsive tennis and has a repulsive character, same with Murray and Djokovic. Hence why I like Federer most compared to the 3.

How can Murray be in the Big anything, when he hasn't even won a Grand Slam?!

Because he has been playing better tennis than Federer and Djokovic for the last 9 months now. If Murray overtakes Federer (which looks likely), Murray still won't have won a grand slam. Will Federer still be the "Big" whatever even when he's trailing Murray?

PiggyGotRoasted
05-15-2009, 11:30 PM
Its a big 1 to be honest.

Oscar Hernandez

Roddickominator
05-15-2009, 11:31 PM
Because he has been playing better tennis than Federer and Djokovic for the last 9 months now. If Murray overtakes Federer (which looks likely), Murray still won't have won a grand slam. Will Federer still be the "Big" whatever even when he's trailing Murray?

Utter BS. You think Murray will be happy with his play if he is ranked #2, yet loses every GS? These guys play to win the biggest tournaments. Winning GS's is what makes a player GREAT.

FedFan_2007
05-15-2009, 11:32 PM
No one can beat the King O.

born_on_clay
05-15-2009, 11:32 PM
Because he has been playing better tennis than Federer and Djokovic for the last 9 months now. If Murray overtakes Federer (which looks likely), Murray still won't have won a grand slam. Will Federer still be the "Big" whatever even when he's trailing Murray?

Of course he will
Just to be sure you understand this: 13 GS > 0 GS

born_on_clay
05-15-2009, 11:33 PM
Utter BS. You think Murray will be happy with his play if he is ranked #2, yet loses every GS? These guys play to win the biggest tournaments. Winning GS's is what makes a player GREAT.

Totally agree

rocketassist
05-15-2009, 11:35 PM
Of course he will
Just to be sure you understand this: 13 GS > 0 GS

13 GS > 6 GS as well.

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:36 PM
Utter BS. You think Murray will be happy with his play if he is ranked #2, yet loses every GS? These guys play to win the biggest tournaments. Winning GS's is what makes a player GREAT.

Learn to read. I said that when Murray passes Fed (looks likely), he still won't have won a GS. The reason being is that he's probably going to pass him at the French. I didn't say anything about Murray not winning grand slams. You completely missed the point of my post.

rocketassist
05-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Marcelo Rios must have done pretty well in order to hold off the 1998 'big 3' of slam winners to get to no 1!

Sapeod
05-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

Wrong. First of all, Murray is in the Big 4, because he's ranked 3, has beaten Federer 7 times, won 3 Masters series, has only lost 5 times this season , 3 being on clay. He has 11 titles, 8 of which have come this year and last year. It is the big 4, then Delpo, Roddick, Verdasco. I don't know where the hell you got Simon from, because he doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence as the these players.

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Of course he will
Just to be sure you understand this: 13 GS > 0 GS

And Sampras has 14 GS to Murray's 0. That doesn't mean we should include him as one of the top names in the sport currently. We're talking about current form here.

Tomy
05-15-2009, 11:37 PM
Oh-my-God... so Del Potro was inside that starship too?! Can he strech?????

FedFan_2007
05-15-2009, 11:38 PM
Let's put it very simply. Because of the new "tough era" it will be impossible for Djoker or Murray to win more then 4-5 slams. Nadal will probably win 12-14. If Fed has some fight left in him, he'll probably finish at 15-16.

Steelq
05-15-2009, 11:39 PM
How can a guy who appeared in slam semifinals only once,and the other one that never even reached a slam semis yet,be a part of anything big?

iamhe
05-15-2009, 11:39 PM
No. Not yet. He'll need to win big titles and run to the SF stages or deeper in slams consistently to join that group.


Indeed.

Plus get colser in the ranking points and beat the big 4 more often then we can discuss.

fast_clay
05-15-2009, 11:40 PM
i was gonna start a thread about the Terrific Twenty... steppa has been red hot this year...

did you know that Radek Stepanek's first three months of '09 was the best start of any year he'd ever had...?

i sh!t you not...

dude was on f***ing fire...

beat up on duck he did...

Voo de Mar
05-15-2009, 11:41 PM
No! Del Potro must beat Federer and Djokovic to say about "big 5". Del potro has still awful record against "big 4".

Sapeod
05-15-2009, 11:42 PM
it's still big 3,murray 'n delpo are in top 10.

You fucked up here :lol: Murray is number 3 :lol: :retard:

Roddickominator
05-15-2009, 11:42 PM
Learn to read. I said that when Murray passes Fed (looks likely), he still won't have won a GS. The reason being is that he's probably going to pass him at the French. I didn't say anything about Murray not winning grand slams. You completely missed the point of my post.

I understood the point of your post completely...I just disagreed. It does not matter if he passes Djokovic....Federer....or even Nadal in the rankings. No one will care 5/10/25/200 years from now if he doesn't have GS Titles to show for it.

Matt01
05-15-2009, 11:44 PM
Wrong. First of all, Murray is in the Big 4, because he's ranked 3, has beaten Federer 7 times, won 3 Masters series, has only lost 5 times this season , 3 being on clay. He has 11 titles, 8 of which have come this year and last year. It is the big 4, then Delpo, Roddick, Verdasco. I don't know where the hell you got Simon from, because he doesn't even deserve to be in the same sentence as the these players.


Excellent post :worship:
You're a bit too harsh with Simon though...he'll overtake the likes of Roddick and Verdasco soon :p ;)


Jesus Christ
Before writing such a bullshit look into the ranking points and think your question over once more
To start with there is no "big 4" - there is Rafa the best player on the planet and the big chasing trio
del Potro is just consistent player. Unless he wins at least MS Shield beating in final someone from the top 4 the will stay an average player for me


Del Pony is already much better than average :lol:
Beating Nadal and Murray within a few weeks at big tournaments is :worship: :rocker:

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:45 PM
I understood the point of your post completely...I just disagreed. It does not matter if he passes Djokovic....Federer....or even Nadal in the rankings. No one will care 5/10/25/200 years from now if he doesn't have GS Titles to show for it.

Like I said, you didn't understand the point of my post. Proof of that is the fact that I don't disagree with anything you just said.

scoobs
05-15-2009, 11:45 PM
I understood the point of your post completely...I just disagreed. It does not matter if he passes Djokovic....Federer....or even Nadal in the rankings. No one will care 5/10/25/200 years from now if he doesn't have GS Titles to show for it.
Agreed. Tommy Haas got to #2 but he's hardly going to light up the history books because he never won a slam. Andy may have beaten the big names of the day on a number of occasions but it's the slam wins that make your name live on.

#2 would be lovely as far as it goes. But as we all know from Federer, the only rankings that matter are those between #1 and the ranking Federer is currently at. Otherwise, it's only about the slams.

Sapeod
05-15-2009, 11:46 PM
Of course he will
Just to be sure you understand this: 13 GS > 0 GS

No relevence whatsoever :rolleyes: Federer's career started almost 7 years before Murray's, so grand slam count is utter bullshit on this discussion. It's current form that makes it, and Murray is number 2 in that department.

Clydey
05-15-2009, 11:47 PM
Agreed. Tommy Haas got to #2 but he's hardly going to light up the history books because he never won a slam. Andy may have beaten the big names of the day on a number of occasions but it's the slam wins that make your name live on.

#2 would be lovely as far as it goes. But as we all know from Federer, the only rankings that matter are those between #1 and the ranking Federer is currently at. Otherwise, it's only about the slams.

I don't disagree with that. Somehow the point of my post got twisted.

Matt01
05-15-2009, 11:47 PM
I understood the point of your post completely...I just disagreed. It does not matter if he passes Djokovic....Federer....or even Nadal in the rankings. No one will care 5/10/25/200 years from now if he doesn't have GS Titles to show for it.


I will so your statement that "no one will care" is already wrong :wavey:

salut235
05-15-2009, 11:49 PM
After this victory, JMDP won Rafa in Miami and Murray in Madrid, and he goes to 2 SF and 2 QF this year, also QF in AUS Open.

Now do you think JMDP is the big 5? discuss.


But according to Federer, who cares, what matters is the no.1 and no.2 only. So there's no such thing as big 3, big 4, big 5...

Sapeod
05-15-2009, 11:49 PM
Excellent post :worship:
You're a bit too harsh with Simon though...he'll overtake the likes of Roddick and Verdasco soon :p ;)

Thanks, and yeah. I was a bit harsh. That happens with me a lot. Simon's okay, but he hasn't been playing well at all this year. The only good result he had was the QF in Australia.

rocketassist
05-15-2009, 11:49 PM
Rios is remembered more fondly than Roddick despite both being no 1 but Roddick having the slam.

Work that one out!

scoobs
05-15-2009, 11:51 PM
But according to Federer, who cares, what matters is the no.1 and no.2 only. So there's no such thing as big 3, big 4, big 5...
According to Roger the only rankings that matter are the ones between #1 and the ranking he's currently at at any given time. So when he's ranked #6 then the 1-6 rankings will be the only ones that matter.

w78dexon_y
05-15-2009, 11:53 PM
NO, NO and NO! Not yet.
WHY not? Because beating Murray on clay is not real deal!

He is #3 you know how?
Djoker was too busy chasing girls throughout Aussie and Miami!!

Tomy
05-15-2009, 11:53 PM
I guess that what Del Potro said las night could close this topic: "Soy el número 1 de los malos (I'm world number 1 among the bad ones)"

marvin0211
05-15-2009, 11:53 PM
No relevence whatsoever :rolleyes: Federer's career started almost 7 years before Murray's, so grand slam count is utter bullshit on this discussion. It's current form that makes it, and Murray is number 2 in that department.


Wrong, you say current form Murray is no. 2, Djokovic is the no. 2 guy right now(anyway when you say current it means clay season, if you past 8 months still i pick Federer as No. 2 he has GS win and a GS Final) so Murray at best in 52weeks at No. 3.:o

w78dexon_y
05-15-2009, 11:55 PM
According to Roger the only rankings that matter are the ones between #1 and the ranking he's currently at at any given time. So when he's ranked #6 then the 1-6 rankings will be the only ones that matter.

:worship:

scoobs
05-15-2009, 11:55 PM
NO, NO and NO! Not yet.
WHY not? Because beating Murray on clay is not real deal!

He is #3 you know how?
Djoker was too busy chasing girls throughout Aussie and Miami!!
If by "chasing girls" you mean "was not in good condition and had fitness and breathing problems" then you might be right.

Sapeod
05-15-2009, 11:55 PM
Wrong, you say current form Murray is no. 2, Djokovic is the no. 2 guy right now(anyway when you say current it means clay season, if you past 8 months still i pick Federer as No. 2 he has GS win and a GS Final) so Murray at best in 52weeks at No. 3.:o

Djokovic's form is indeed impressive, and even though Murray is at number 3 in the race (didn't realise that :tape:) he's still number 3 and in the big 3, which means the people who have been saying he isn't even in a big 4 are still wrong :p

w78dexon_y
05-15-2009, 11:57 PM
I guess that what Del Potro said las night could close this topic: "Soy el número 1 de los malos (I'm world number 1 among the bad ones)"

did he really say that?

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 12:01 AM
If by "chasing girls" you mean "was not in good condition and had fitness and breathing problems" then you might be right.

sure. When one is chasing girls too much, he doesn't have time to prepare. And he doesn't care either. When you're Djokvoivc you can afford this.

Tomy
05-16-2009, 12:01 AM
did he really say that?

Yep. Source (In spanish): http://www.ole.clarin.com/notas/2009/05/15/tenis/01918910.html

On yesterday's press conference, when they asked him about the points he needed to become Nº4

LocoPorElTenis
05-16-2009, 12:01 AM
did he really say that?

I haven't seen this particular quote, but he always says that he's still light years behind the top 4.

marvin0211
05-16-2009, 12:02 AM
Djokovic's form is indeed impressive, and even though Murray is at number 3 in the race (didn't realise that :tape:) he's still number 3 and in the big 3, which means the people who have been saying he isn't even in a big 4 are still wrong :p

Well anyway as I say you elevate Murray as no. 2:o in your post, check the facts first before posting. Do not be an unreasonable fanboy

Joao
05-16-2009, 12:02 AM
But as we all know from Federer, the only rankings that matter are those between #1 and the ranking Federer is currently at.

:lol::lol:

scoobs
05-16-2009, 12:03 AM
I haven't seen this particular quote, but he always says that he's still light years behind the top 4.
But, I feel, making the right moves to at least narrow that gap in the coming several months.

Though bearing in mind he has 4 title wins to defend post Wimbledon and a QF at the US Open.

Clydey
05-16-2009, 12:06 AM
But, I feel, making the right moves to at least narrow that gap in the coming several months.

Though bearing in mind he has 4 title wins to defend post Wimbledon and a QF at the US Open.

Am I right in thinking that he won't be defending those? He only played those events because he couldn't get automatic entry into the MS tournaments, I think.

LocoPorElTenis
05-16-2009, 12:08 AM
Am I right in thinking that he won't be defending those? He only played those events because he couldn't get automatic entry into the MS tournaments, I think.

Yes... but we the new ranking system a SF in a TMS is worth 50% more than a 250 tournie win. Provided he keeps getting to QF or SF of most TMS/GS, he won't lose any points, but to get closer to the top 4 he will need to actually win some TMS or make the final of a GS, as a first step. Not impossible, but Djokovic and Federer are still awful matchups for him.

scoobs
05-16-2009, 12:09 AM
Am I right in thinking that he won't be defending those? He only played those events because he couldn't get automatic entry into the MS tournaments, I think.
Well last year he played 2 events, won them, took 2 weeks off (coinciding with Canada and Cincy) and then played 2 events, won them both.

I imagine he'll drop at least 2 of the events he won because he'll automatically be entered into Montreal and Cincy. But he might try and defend a couple of the titles. Kitzi has moved of course anyway.

robiht
05-16-2009, 12:11 AM
Definetely not. :haha:
I said somewhere some weeks ago that i think someone will join to the "big 4".But its too early.
Del Potro is a very good player,who still didn't win a big tournament(Masters 1000,or GS).
Maybe at the end of the year you can ask the same question.

IMO we can say that the player who wants to join the "big 4":

Has to be constantly in the top10 for some years.(play in the Masters Cup -Shanghai,London- at the end of the year)
Good results in Grand Slams: SF's or Finals or Title
Very good results in Masters 1000: Finals or Title
Won some 250-500 events in the last 2 years
Beat the "big 4" many times in SF's and Finals (like beat Nadal/Federer in USOPEN/AUSOPEN or Beat Djoko/Murray in Miami,Rome or Cincinnati or something like that)
The point is that with 1-2 big results or long time ago results(like Safin,Hewitt) nobody can join them.

There are lots of candidates for the next "big" title:
Tsonga: 1 GS final,1 Masters title
Verdasco: 1 GS semifinal,Masters SF maybe?
Simon: 1 Masters Final - no GS results,if i remember good
and of course Del Potro: only masters SF - no big GS results

So it's a long way to join the "big 4".But we'll see at the end of the year who will be the 5th /or maybe the 6th/ :)

By the way I vote for Verdasco or JMDP in 1.5 years...

Sapeod
05-16-2009, 12:12 AM
Well anyway as I say you elevate Murray as no. 2:o in your post, check the facts first before posting. Do not be an unreasonable fanboy

Yes, you're majesty.

vidanhv
05-16-2009, 12:14 AM
LOL, easy, easy there! Look at the points.

federernadalfan
05-16-2009, 12:17 AM
bandwagon thread for sure no?
but he did play like he was #3 today :lol:

Guga_fan
05-16-2009, 12:19 AM
For me there were never "a big 4". There was a "big 3" until from the mid 2007 to mid 2008, then Djokovic started playing horribly, Federer continued his decline and Nadal was the only one of them who didn't get worse (he got better instead) and Murray started playing well, but not at the same level of the old "big 3".

That's it, Del potro proved he can defeat the players ranked above him but I don't think there's big 4 or big 5.

vidanhv
05-16-2009, 12:21 AM
I'm a bit sick and tired of all this discussion about Muzza and Djoker rightful place on the ATP list. Muzza deserved to be no. 3 considering his form during the hard court season, and Djoker will regain it if he keeps up his current form throughout the clay and grass season. Points don’t lie. The gap is too narrow, so whats the point. As to the DP, he is not near to these guys, but with some hard work, he will get there.

salut235
05-16-2009, 12:21 AM
For me there were never "a big 4". There was a "big 3" until from the mid 2007 to mid 2008, then Djokovic started playing horribly, Federer continued his decline and Nadal was the only one of them who didn't get worse (he got better instead) and Murray started playing well, but not at the same level of the old "big 3".

That's it, Del potro proved he can defeat the players ranked above him but I don't think there's big 4 or big 5.

Well, Murray has won the last 3 matches against Djokovic and the last 4 matches against Federer. I think he belongs in the same group. It's inevitable that he will win a slam soon, probably next year since this year belongs to Nadal who will win all 4 slams.

MrChopin
05-16-2009, 12:24 AM
There is Nadal. Then there is Federer. Then there is Djokovic and Murray. Then there are others. I will be adding to the dictionary in a moment...

Because he has been playing better tennis than Federer and Djokovic for the last 9 months now. If Murray overtakes Federer (which looks likely), Murray still won't have won a grand slam. Will Federer still be the "Big" whatever even when he's trailing Murray?

Yes, Fed will still be big, and it's because Murray doesn't yet mean much at the biggest stages. Outside of Nadal, Fed is the favorite to win slams, anything on grass, and arguably anything on clay

Right now, Murray is the best at three-set hardcourt matches, but outside of that, he's far removed from them. Being 50 ranking points ahead of Fed doesn't change that. Should Murray leave Wimbledon without a big result between now and then, there will be disappointment and then large pressure to repeat his great hard court streak from last year...

ATP Masters Series Canada S (450)
ATP Masters Series Cincinnati W (1000)
US Open F (1400)
ATP Masters Series Madrid W (1000)
St. Petersburg W (500)
ATP Masters Series Paris Q (250)
Tennis Masters Cup S (600)

marvin0211
05-16-2009, 12:25 AM
No big 4 or big 5 either

There is The Big One
The Three Stooges
and the Rest

Guga_fan
05-16-2009, 12:31 AM
Well, Murray has won the last 3 matches against Djokovic and the last 4 matches against Federer. I think he belongs in the same group. It's inevitable that he will win a slam soon, probably next year since this year belongs to Nadal who will win all 4 slams.

I'm trying to say that there's no group anymore, since Federer and Djokovic started playing badly. Im my opinion there's no big 3, big 4, or big 5.

Since mid 2008 Djokovic already lost to Nieminen, Gulbis, Safin (way past his best), Karlovic and was destroyed by Roddick. Federer, one of the best players ever, lost to Wawrinka (I like Stan), Simon (twice) and Karlovic. And that's it.

McAlistar
05-16-2009, 12:47 AM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

You arent seriously rating Murray with Simon you twit:o

A man whos won 11 titles,3 masters events and reached a slam final at 21 compared too Simon who has won next to nothing:confused:

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 01:04 AM
Delpotro has to beat Federer tomorrow, Djokovic on Sunday, Nadal in FO and Federer in Wimbledon, and then he is gonna be part of Big 5.

GlennMirnyi
05-16-2009, 01:05 AM
:lol:

Gotta love overreactions.

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 01:08 AM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

Sort of I agre. Big three followed by Murray. In order to become really Big, one has to win one slams or become world #1. Either or.

However, how did your Simon lost among all these names?? lol funny.

jmf07
05-16-2009, 01:10 AM
What is the big deal about grouping players in a big 4 or 5?

Clydey
05-16-2009, 01:53 AM
Sort of I agre. Big three followed by Murray. In order to become really Big, one has to win one slams or become world #1. Either or.

However, how did your Simon lost among all these names?? lol funny.

Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic, so how can he be behind Djokovic?

Roddickominator
05-16-2009, 01:55 AM
Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic, so how can he be behind Djokovic?

Uh...no slam maybe?

Clydey
05-16-2009, 01:59 AM
Uh...no slam maybe?

Why is that relevant when it comes to judging who the better player is right now? Sampras has 14 slams. That doesn't mean he's a better player than the top 4 right now. We're talking about current form. Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic and has beaten him on the last 3 occasions they have met. Therefore, on current form he is the better player. A slam win over a year ago doesn't factor into current form. It's really not all that difficult to understand.

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 02:03 AM
No, we can say BIG 2 because only 2 players are doing anything in the slams. Federer looked just as bad last year as he does this year but last year he won the US Open and then made the Aus Open Final. Murray and Nola haven't proven anything, and anyone who thinks Del Potro is for real should watch his last slam meeting with Federer.

Roddickominator
05-16-2009, 02:04 AM
Why is that relevant when it comes to judging who the better player is right now? Sampras has 14 slams. That doesn't mean he's a better player than the top 4 right now. We're talking about current form. Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic and has beaten him on the last 3 occasions they have met. Therefore, on current form he is the better player. A slam win over a year ago doesn't factor into current form. It's really not all that difficult to understand.

Well that's what the rankings are for.

If it makes you feel better that Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic at this current point in time(and it could easily be only for a few weeks)....then have at it. But it's ultimately irrelevant....and has zero to do with Murray's overall greatness.

That's why I say he isn't in the "Big" anything....and neither is Del Potro. You're only a "Big" jackass if you haven't won a slam and still want to consider yourself in the company of those who have.

Clydey
05-16-2009, 02:13 AM
Well that's what the rankings are for.

If it makes you feel better that Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic at this current point in time(and it could easily be only for a few weeks)....then have at it. But it's ultimately irrelevant....and has zero to do with Murray's overall greatness.

That's why I say he isn't in the "Big" anything....and neither is Del Potro. You're only a "Big" jackass if you haven't won a slam and still want to consider yourself in the company of those who have.

Yeah, Murray doesn't belong in the same sentence as Thomas Johansson. :sad:

I guess we should just rank players based on slam success and put Pistol Pete back at world number 1. Maybe we should get Laver out of retirement and stick him in the top 10? I mean, it's not like current results mean anything. Rankings should be based on the objective concept of "Overall Greatness".

I'm going to send an e-mail to the ATP with this suggestion.

Roddickominator
05-16-2009, 02:16 AM
Yeah, Murray doesn't belong in the same sentence as Thomas Johansson. :sad:

I guess we should just rank players based on slam success and put Pistol Pete back at world number 1. Maybe we should get Laver out of retirement and stick him in the top 10? I mean, it's not like current results mean anything. Rankings should be based on the objective concept of "Overall Greatness".

I'm going to send an e-mail to the ATP with this suggestion.

That's already how it is....they don't need an e-mail from you.

The rankings are what they are....and are temporary and used only for seeding in tourneys pretty much.

Slams are forever....and are a player's ultimate measuring stick of greatness.

Clydey
05-16-2009, 02:22 AM
That's already how it is....they don't need an e-mail from you.

The rankings are what they are....and are temporary and used only for seeding in tourneys pretty much.

Slams are forever....and are a player's ultimate measuring stick of greatness.

"The Big 4" isn't a phrase used with respect to their place in history. It refers to the 4 players who are dominating the tour. That's why Roger's 13 slams to Murray's 0 isn't relevant. In the context of their legacy it is very important, but that has nothing to do with what is happening currently. That's why Rafa is the best player in the world, yet he has fewer than half of Federer's slams.

This isn't rocket science. The phrase has nothing to do with the history books.

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 02:24 AM
"The Big 4" isn't a phrase used with respect to their place in history. It refers to the 4 players who are dominating the tour. That's why Roger's 13 slams to Murray's 0 isn't relevant. In the context of their legacy it is very important, but that has nothing to do with what is happening currently. That's why Rafa is the best player in the world, yet he has fewer than half of Federer's slams.

This isn't rocket science. The phrase has nothing to do with the history books.

So even though Murray choked in the only match that mattered (US Open in case you are wondering) and did nothing in the Aust Open he still is considered better than Federer right now? Lets see how that works for you at RG and Wimbledon....

Clydey
05-16-2009, 02:27 AM
So even though Murray choked in the only match that mattered (US Open in case you are wondering) and did nothing in the Aust Open he still is considered better than Federer right now? Lets see how that works for you at RG and Wimbledon....

The USO match wasn't the only match that mattered. That's all that matters for people who watch 4 tournaments per year.

And since when is getting thumped in straight sets a choke? He got outplayed. It's not like he was in a position to win the match and then gifted it back.

Roddickominator
05-16-2009, 02:30 AM
"The Big 4" isn't a phrase used with respect to their place in history. It refers to the 4 players who are dominating the tour. That's why Roger's 13 slams to Murray's 0 isn't relevant. In the context of their legacy it is very important, but that has nothing to do with what is happening currently. That's why Rafa is the best player in the world, yet he has fewer than half of Federer's slams.

This isn't rocket science. The phrase has nothing to do with the history books.

Sounds to me like you're just looking for ways to prop up your boy Murray. There's hardly anything "big" about winning MM and Masters tourneys....plenty of clowns have done that. Plenty of clowns have been ranked in the Top 5 as well.

Those who respect tradition and greatness will reserve nicknames and special status like "The Big Four" etc for those that deserve it...not for whoever is the flavor of the month.

Clydey
05-16-2009, 02:34 AM
Sounds to me like you're just looking for ways to prop up your boy Murray. There's hardly anything "big" about winning MM and Masters tourneys....plenty of clowns have done that. Plenty of clowns have been ranked in the Top 5 as well.

Those who respect tradition and greatness will reserve nicknames and special status like "The Big Four" etc for those that deserve it...not for whoever is the flavor of the month.

You seriously need to get a clue. You can't even wrap your head around something this basic.

I don't need to prop up my "boy". The rankings do that. So should we put Hewitt, Safin and Johansson ahead of Murray on current form, too? :lol:

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 02:45 AM
The USO match wasn't the only match that mattered. That's all that matters for people who watch 4 tournaments per year.

And since when is getting thumped in straight sets a choke? He got outplayed. It's not like he was in a position to win the match and then gifted it back.

I was giving Murray the benefit of the doubt by saying he choked, especially considering how poorly Federer played in the 2nd set, but if you want to say Murray played his usual game and was flat outplayed then no problem.

Yeah if you pride Murray on nonslams okay, go for it, having a great year.

gulzhan
05-16-2009, 02:57 AM
I agree that even "big 4" is a bit premature since Murray has not won a GS yet, but "big 5" would be much more than outstretched :lol:

Action Jackson
05-16-2009, 03:10 AM
groundstroke, the immaculate misconception.

The bandwagon thread will never die out.

MacTheKnife
05-16-2009, 03:47 AM
Not yet. Only two guys not named Nadal or Federer have won a slam in the last 19. That is Djok and Safin, and they have 1 each. So we basically still have a big two and a bunch of want to be's.

homogenius
05-16-2009, 03:48 AM
no

Arkulari
05-16-2009, 03:50 AM
Fedal duopoly: won 19 of the last 23 slams (Roddick USO '03, Gaudio RG '04, Safin AO '05, Djoker AO '08)

Gaudio is playing challengers, Safin is on his way out, Roddick is no longer a slam threat, Djoker cannot defend a title if his life depends on it... :rolleyes:

the rest of players seem promising and some are in great form, but still have a long long long way to go to be even consider in the same league as Roger and Rafa ;)

BIGMARAT
05-16-2009, 03:54 AM
Why is there even a Big 4? Murray hasn't even won a Grand Slam and Djokovic is only saved by his recent success.. Nadal is playing very good now while Federer has 13 Slams - enough said.

Big 2 - followed by Djokovic, then by Del Potro/Murray/Simon.

I thats your idea of ranking, it should be Super Big 1, then Big2.... and so forth..

How can you equate rafa to federer?

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 03:58 AM
Murray is ranked ahead of Djokovic, so how can he be behind Djokovic?

no Slam, and no MS clay title.

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 04:04 AM
No, we can say BIG 2 because only 2 players are doing anything in the slams.

Why don't you get educated first?
I know a player among top five who is the youngest in open era who reached all four Slam semifinals, and played on two Slam finals of which he won one.

Can you guess his name?

FairWeatherFan
05-16-2009, 04:12 AM
Bandwagon thread, and it just proves that tennis is dead for this ball-basher to be in the supposed "big 5".

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 04:24 AM
Why don't you get educated first?
I know a player among top five who is the youngest in open era who reached all four Slam semifinals, and played on two Slam finals of which he won one.

Can you guess his name?

Nobody's going to remember that trivia, its all about WINNING. Take the opportunities that come your way or risk being called a 'poor big match player'.

chammer44
05-16-2009, 04:30 AM
Lets not get carried away.

Delpotro is not even the best player in Argentina.

Arkulari
05-16-2009, 04:35 AM
Muzza is a very good player and is on excellent form right now (and from the late HC season of last year) but until he starts winning slams, he won't be up there :shrug:

people won't remember how many MS or MM tournaments a player won, when it comes down to be consider one of the great ones, Slams are all that matter :shrug:

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 05:17 AM
Nobody's going to remember that trivia, its all about WINNING.

Right. And besides your Rafa and Rog there are few more Active players players who WON bunch of Slams too! So, what about them? Who cares, shoot them, since their names are not RAFA! Well, I am sure Rafa deserves better fans than you.

FedFan_2007
05-16-2009, 05:23 AM
Right. And besides your Rafa and Rog there are few more Active players players who WON bunch of Slams too! So, what about them? Who cares, shoot them, since their names are not RAFA! Well, I am sure Rafa deserves better fans than you.

Which active players have won a bunch of slams? Hewitt & Safin each have 2. That's it. Safin is ready to retire and Hewitt will retire in a year.

FedFan_2007
05-16-2009, 05:25 AM
Slams the last 5 years:

2004 - Federer/Gaudio/Federer/Federer
2005 - Safin/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2006 - Federer/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2007 - Federer/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2008 - Djokovic/Nadal/Nadal/Federer
2009 - Nadal

Federer - 12
Nadal - 6
Gaudio - 1
Safin - 1
Djokovic - 1

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 05:26 AM
Which active players have won a bunch of slams? Hewitt & Safin each have 2. That's it. Safin is ready to retire and Hewitt will retire in a year.

right! So, let's shoot them! Both!

Roddick, Moya, Ferrero, Djokovic must be shot too, because they're holding ONE slam only!

Disgusting logic! Again: Rafa deserves way better fans than you.

w78dexon_y
05-16-2009, 05:28 AM
Slams the last 5 years:

2004 - Federer/Gaudio/Federer/Federer
2005 - Safin/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2006 - Federer/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2007 - Federer/Nadal/Federer/Federer
2008 - Djokovic/Nadal/Nadal/Federer
2009 - Nadal

Federer - 12
Nadal - 6
Gaudio - 1
Safin - 1
Djokovic - 1

last 5 eh? Why not last year and a half? Why not in the open era? Take a hike, man!

peterparker
05-16-2009, 05:53 AM
Not yet. But he is obviously a far better top 5 player than davydenko.

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 06:04 AM
Right. And besides your Rafa and Rog there are few more Active players players who WON bunch of Slams too! So, what about them? Who cares, shoot them, since their names are not RAFA! Well, I am sure Rafa deserves better fans than you.

No, Nadal and Federer are the only players winning slams the last few years, they are in a class of their own and if Murray and Djokovic want to be taken seriously as being in the same class as top2 then they have to win grand slam titles. It's really not complicated, and btw you know I'm not a Federer fan, so this isn't biased otherwise I'd be just saying Nadal is the only great player. Its all about winning slams.

rafa_maniac
05-16-2009, 06:25 AM
Not yet. Only two guys not named Nadal or Federer have won a slam in the last 19. That is Djok and Safin, and they have 1 each. So we basically still have a big two and a bunch of want to be's.

I agree with this, it was briefly a "big 3" when Djokovic broke through at the Slams, but not really anymore. Murray? Disregarding discussions of overall legacy, being "big" currently should mean competing for the Slams, and with only one progression beyond a QF and a beatdown in the final that he did make, I'm not sure he deserves that status yet. He can beat Federer in best of three AMS events, but Federer hasn't been doing much at those since 07. Ranking is nice, but Roddick was briefly ranked #3 towards the end of 07 and I don't remember anyone clamouring to annoint him? As for Del Potro... don't make me laugh, let the guy even make a final of a worthwhile event first.

lamnathalie
05-16-2009, 06:36 AM
As for Del Potro... don't make me laugh, let the guy even make a final of a worthwhile event first.
True.

Mechlan
05-16-2009, 07:16 AM
He is starting to pull away from the rest of the top 10, but it's not a big 5 yet. Needs at least a MS title to begin talking about him in that league. Two straight GS QF and consistently good MS results this year is a good start though.

ossie
05-16-2009, 08:18 AM
Not yet. But he is obviously a far better top 5 player than davydenko.
this man speaks the truth

Or Levy
05-16-2009, 08:25 AM
Nope, not yet, but he's 22 to Djoko and Murray 22 years, and Rafa is 23.

He has loads and loads of time.

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 08:47 AM
I saw this match between Del Potro and Federer at the Australian Open. It was really funny.

heya
05-16-2009, 09:00 AM
As long as you care to win and respect the opponent, I don't mind watching. Del Potro and Djokovic can improve their attitude.

Roddick never stops distracting himself. Gives up, but acts like people don't know he's not working much.
He pretends he won't get injured and sick every time he overcelebrates winning a set of tennis.
Then the injury or illness happens soon after.
He doesn't care about anything but showing off money and childish celebrations in US Davis Cup ties, on camera. He spits wrong sarcasm to avoid dealing with personal problems.

Murray thinks he's too good, but he still lacks return game strength. He's whiny, obnoxious and distracts himself sometimes.
Federer cries and bitches when he can't get more ass-kissing, presents and easy draws. Not reassuring if these 2 will change attitudes and plans.

Davydenko's very hard-working, but he has trouble changing his game. He requires completely emotional and slow opponents to self-destruct.

TennisViewer531
05-16-2009, 10:11 AM
We'll just see how del Potro will fare in GS events and then we can say there's this so-called "Big 5"

rubbERR
05-16-2009, 10:13 AM
There is no "big 4" or "big 5"....

groundstroke
05-16-2009, 10:21 AM
Because he has been playing better tennis than Federer and Djokovic for the last 9 months now. If Murray overtakes Federer (which looks likely), Murray still won't have won a grand slam. Will Federer still be the "Big" whatever even when he's trailing Murray?

Just understand this - 13 Grand Slams > 0 Grand Slams. :)

groundstroke
05-16-2009, 10:24 AM
Federer and Nadal will be in the record books for a long, long time, while Murray will never be in them because he has no Grand Slam.

Doesn't matter if he overtakes Roger, he still has no Grand Slams, it doesn't make him a special player at all when he has no Grand Slams.

vamosinator
05-16-2009, 10:32 AM
Federer and Nadal will be in the record books for a long, long time, while Murray will never be in them because he has no Grand Slam.

Doesn't matter if he overtakes Roger, he still has no Grand Slams, it doesn't make him a special player at all when he has no Grand Slams.

Murray has no slams :bigclap:

This is Sparta
05-16-2009, 10:36 AM
Mugrray the pusher sh!its his pants in the important moments...since his "big improvement" he played 4 important tournaments: Olympics, USO, YEC and AO. Which one did he win?

zeleni
05-16-2009, 10:41 AM
No, it's still big 2.

More exactly it's: 2(Nadal, Federer)+2(Murray, Djokovic)+rest

Bilbo
05-16-2009, 10:48 AM
bullshit thread but expected

amonb
05-16-2009, 11:09 AM
As long as the right style of play is given I don't mind admitting to anything, but Nadal plays repulsive tennis and has a repulsive character, same with Murray and Djokovic. Hence why I like Federer most compared to the 3.

How can Murray be in the Big anything, when he hasn't even won a Grand Slam?!Nadal plays brilliant tennis. He is better than Federer, he shows his opponants more respect than Federer, and when he gets the end of his carrer he will have more grand slams than Federer.... On all surfaces!!!! And i wouldn't call Federer sparying that backhand all over the place exactly beautiful tennis!!!

Goldenoldie
05-16-2009, 11:13 AM
Federer and Nadal will be in the record books for a long, long time, while Murray will never be in them because he has no Grand Slam.

Doesn't matter if he overtakes Roger, he still has no Grand Slams, it doesn't make him a special player at all when he has no Grand Slams.

I disagree. Murray will be in the record books as the best British player for 70 years, and the highest ranked British player since rankings began. OK, no big deal for the rest of the world, but important in our little island. He may or may not win a slam, but he'll do until someone better comes along.

amonb
05-16-2009, 11:16 AM
I disagree. Murray will be in the record books as the best British player for 70 years, and the highest ranked British player since rankings began. OK, no big deal for the rest of the world, but important in our little island. He may or may not win a slam, but he'll do until someone better comes along.All i want is for him to win Wimbledon once. That's up there with England winning the World Cup for me!!!

Goldenoldie
05-16-2009, 11:19 AM
Del Potro

Points behind Djokovic at #4 4000
Points ahead of Roddick at #6 610

Before talking about a big 5, DP needs to be closer to 4, and further away from 6. He may do it, but it will take time.

amonb
05-16-2009, 11:21 AM
Del Potro

Points behind Djokovic at #4 4000
Points ahead of Roddick at #6 610

Before talking about a big 5, DP needs to be closer to 4, and further away from 6. He may do it, but it will take time.

I think people are getting carried away with last nights win. All of a sudden he beats Murray, but they soon forget about the surface they were playing on, the same surface they were ridiculing him on a couple of months ago!!!

marcRD
05-16-2009, 12:23 PM
Last 4 slam results:

Nadal: W-W-SF-W
Federer: F-F-W-F
Djokovic: SF-1st round-SF-QF
Murray: 3rd round-QF-F-4th round

There certanly is a big 2 who are constantly facing each other in 5 set epic slam finals.

Xavidbz
05-16-2009, 12:46 PM
Nad: 08 GS + 15 MS (2 + 4 finals)
Fed: 13 GS + 14 MS (5 + 9 finals)
Djo: 01 GS + 04 MS (1 + 5 finals)
Mur: 00 GS + 03 MS (1 + 1 finals)

DPo: 00 GS + 00 MS (0 + 0 finals)

Enough said: no big 5 whatsoever.

rtgy
05-16-2009, 12:48 PM
:haha: how about the BIG 6...since Ljubo Legenda beat JMDP(on clay) and 3 more wins vs Top 10 players this year.


:worship::worship::worship::worship::worship:

rafa_maniac
05-16-2009, 12:53 PM
Nad: 08 GS + 15 MS (2 + 4 finals)
Fed: 13 GS + 14 MS (5 + 9 finals)
Djo: 01 GS + 04 MS (1 + 5 finals)
Mur: 00 GS + 03 MS (1 + 1 finals)

DPo: 00 GS + 00 MS (0 + 0 finals)

Enough said: no big 5 whatsoever.

Nadal has 8 Slams :confused:

FlameOn
05-16-2009, 01:02 PM
I think Roddick will get back to the Top 5 and #5 will end up being Delpo's highest ranking.

Federerhingis
05-16-2009, 05:20 PM
I am not sure I would want to include Del Potro into this elite group just yet. He is very talented and has so much potential however he's yet to prove he really belongs on this group. He has not won a masters series event and he has not reached the semifinals of a slam. Once he reaches the quarterfinals at all the slams and knocks one of the big ones at a slam then I can say he's a member of this elite group.

marcRD
05-16-2009, 05:25 PM
Nadal has 8 Slams :confused:

I think they are counting in RG 2009 and 2010, which is already in the bag so to speak.

FiBeR
05-16-2009, 05:28 PM
del potro = a weaker version of davydenko ??

that's to discuss :p