[GOAT = Fed]

Originally Posted by rocketassist

mods: drag this thread outside and have a large cow shit on it instantly.

[Rrrainer]

murray easily outdistancing delpo.

[DJ Soup]

Originally Posted by Saberq

well he's been at full health for 2 years now

that injury was a turning point, recovery is a slow process.
Really, try and put yourself in his situation.
And 2011 was a prudent precautionary year. 2012 he upped some gears. This year he should deliver more consistently, I hope.

[Andi-M]

Murray only won because of the wind, so his slam win dosent count as the conditions were not the same for both players. The wind was only on Novaks side of the court and only effected poor Novaks game. If this wasnt for this blatent injustice Novak would have triple bagelled Murray.

[GOAT = Fed]

Originally Posted by Andi-M

Murray only won because of the wind, so his slam win dosent count as the conditions were not the same for both players. The wind was only on Novaks side of the court and only effected poor Novaks game. If this wasnt for this blatent injustice Novak would have triple bagelled Murray.

Seems like you've invested too much emotionally to the baiting of the trolls.

Take a step back and a deep breath. Everything is fine.

[Noleta]

Both legitimate.But DelPo won in,beating fedal back to back,so his win was the more impressive,which should be the thread title,imo.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by Saberq

I like Delpo to be honest but were 1 Roger's FH from never talking about Delpo as a serious Slam contender

We were also a few points away from talking about Delpo as a 2-Slam winner - semis of RG 2009 were just as tight and decided by a few points as the USO final later that year. It works both ways. Delpo was as much in control of the first three sets in Paris as Federer in New York - perhaps even more so since Federer didn't get a single break point until the fourth set.

[2003]

Hate to say it, but muggay.

Roger gifted that slam to del po. Roger lost, del po didn't win.

[2003]

Originally Posted by Mark Lenders

We were also a few points away from talking about Delpo as a 2-Slam winner - semis of RG 2009 were just as tight and decided by a few points as the USO final later that year. It works both ways. Delpo was as much in control of the first three sets in Paris as Federer in New York - perhaps even more so since Federer didn't get a single break point until the fourth set.

Soderling would have been the favourite in such a final for sure. Del Po had serious endurance issues back then.

[2003]

The only time someone in a semi has ever been 1-2 points from a title was Fed 2005 AO, no way Hewitt beats him in the final. Otherwise, you must make the final to be 2 points from anything.

[Mark Lenders]

Originally Posted by 2003

Soderling would have been the favourite in such a final for sure. Del Po had serious endurance issues back then.

Stamina hardly matters in a routine 3 setter, which is what their history suggest would happen (I assume you've watched their matches against each other), not to mention how much better Del Potro dealt with the pressure of the first Slam final compared to Soderling and how in both his RG runs Robin slowly lost gas/momentum after his big upsets. There's no 100% in tennis, but Del Potro would have definitely been the overwhelming favorite in such final.

[End da Game]

has to be GOATro, he destroyed the two greatest players of this era

whereas murray barely scrapped past an exhausted djokovic even with the assistance of heavy wind to help his pushing tennis

[Prodigy.]

Equally as legitimate, all slam titles are legit, no matter what any mug says.

[SliceAce]

First we have to dismiss the myth propagated by Mugraytards that all slams are legitimate. This is obviously untrue, as the essence of tennis history was the controversy over legitimate slams. After all, the Open Era began because the best players weren't playing the slams and a bunch of amateurs were winning. I'm pretty sure if Nadal, Federer, and Djokovic were forbidden from playing the AO and Mugray won, it wouldn't be very controvertial that it was an illegitimate slam.

OK so that's pre-open era. What about open era? The Australian Open has had multiple illegitimate winners because it wasn't important. I think everyone would agree that 1972 Wimbledon was illegitimate. Various other circumstances have been argued to cause illegitimacy throughout tennis history: weather, fixing, terrible officiating and player/organization conflicts, etc. What we can say is that the concept of an illegitimate slam is not only correct, it is an essential part of what tennis is today. That Mugraytards deny this is more than ignorance I'm afraid to say, it goes back to a fundamental distaste for the game of tennis and a fear that Mugray will be exposed as a fraudulent winner in a controversial USO arguably as bad as the FO and W of 1972. That the players didn't strike after the USO Mugray debacle shows what a serious problem there is in tennis and the danger Mugray represents.

[Prodigy.]

Originally Posted by End da Game

has to be GOATro, he destroyed the two greatest players of this era

whereas murray barely scrapped past an exhausted djokovic even with the assistance of heavy wind to help his pushing tennis