Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 13 of 13 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
930 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Where was peak Wawrinka pre-AO 2013 ?

Where was peak Murray in 2017 ? Gone.

Djokovic had to deal with the toughest era there ever was while Federer kept collecting cheap titles without strong GS tournament contenders / rivals.

Wawrinka and Murray started peaking during Djokovics leading era, never during Federer's era.

MURRAY -> Just peaked like crazy and vultured every title he found on his way to the number one while Djokovic struggled with his injury. He costed Djokovic one additional deserved year end number one and more weeks at number one.

17 > 20. Djokovic > Federer Forget about the style everything what makes people love Federer. Just look at who the better tennis player really is, everything combined. Not in theory but practically and constistent.

WAWRINKA -> Nearly denied AO 2013 and would have definitely won that tournament. He was the second best player of this tournament and finished Djokovic because he was mentally weak in 2014 and gifted Wawrinka the victory with bad net approaches. Again close match. Djokovic would have won that tournament and would have held deserveably the record for most consecutive GS semifinals with 24 in a row. Crazy ! Djokovic had 14 consecutive pre AO 2014 and 9 after. 14+1+9 = 24 > 23 (weak era consecutive GS semifinalist, Djokovic would have crushed that era so much, unbelievable).

B) -> denied Djokovic the GRAND SLAM and second French Open title with a peak that was not seen before from him or after that match on clay again. And Djokovic mentally drained and physically weakened from Murray encounter in the semifinal which went over two days. That year was the most successful season in the Open Era. Only Stan spoiled it.

C) -> and did it again in the US Open 2016 final. What a great performance he generated there again. Djokovic did not play that bad but Wawrinka was peaking once again.

THAT MEANS IN THE END THAT DJOKOVIC SIMPLY DESERVES TO COLLECT EVERY GS TITLE THAT IS COMING BECAUSE FEDERER DID SO DURING HIS FUNNY RIVALS ERA. No complains from Fedbase ! Keep quiet, genius at work !

Nadal and Djokovic are meant to have at least as many majors as Federer. It has to be done. Minimum 20. That is only fair and mirrors Djodals true supremacy and excellence which was never below Federer's. They had to suffer under his pre-established aura, global fandom and idiocy. Keep loving Fed, but never complain again about that.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,477 Posts
We can discuss about Wawrinka, but Djokovic might actually have profited from Murray's presence who lost 2-8 against Djokovic at slams. And he beat Federer in the Olympics singles final in London, which is the only really important title missing in Federer's legacy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
61 Posts
Djokovic's own fault he lost multiple slams to players so much less accomplished than himself.
Lol wtf is this thread .People actually have trouble understanding that it's worse when you lose a slam final to a lower ranked player than it is to lose to #1 or #2,considering you know,those guys are better than the rest of the field lol

With the exception of his loss to Del Potro ,I think that Federer didn't lose another slam final to a player ranked bellow #2.Players like Murray couldn't touch Federer at slams.I think he lost only once to Murray at AO and it was in his worst season 2013,that is.Wawrinka beat him only once and that was 2015 RG quarterfinal I think.

On the other hand Djokovic lost to those guys on multiple occasions in slam finals and in some earlier rounds at slams as well and all that whilst he was in his prime.

People should ask themselves when opening these kind of topics why didnt Wawrinka or Murray peak more often against Federer or Nadal.

So the guy should probably rephrase the topic so it says :"Could Djokovic losing slam finals to clearly inferior players hurt his legacy "
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,236 Posts
They’re ALL lucky regarding Murray being injured for the last 3 years. Guy was at his peak, number 1 in the world and would have claimed MANY of the last 12 slams.
I’m not saying he would have won all of them but probably at least 5 or 6
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
We can discuss about Wawrinka, but Djokovic might actually have profited from Murray's presence who lost 2-8 against Djokovic at slams. And he beat Federer in the Olympics singles final in London, which is the only really important title missing in Federer's legacy.
Olympics is not a big deal. Federer misses some atp 1000 too.
 

·
Your visions will happen
Joined
·
49,321 Posts
They’re ALL lucky regarding Murray being injured for the last 3 years. Guy was at his peak, number 1 in the world and would have claimed MANY of the last 12 slams.
I’m not saying he would have won all of them but probably at least 5 or 6
I know you are drunk about what has happened with Murray, but I agree with some of this. Such a shame he got injured at his peak and could not enjoy his reign at the top. He finished a Djokovic who just won 4 straight fucking slams damn it. Murray could have won a slam a year since his #1, I don't see why not, had he stayed healthy as the other guys.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,815 Posts
I know you are drunk about what has happened with Murray, but I agree with some of this. Such a shame he got injured at his peak and could not enjoy his reign at the top. He finished a Djokovic who just won 4 straight fucking slams damn it. Murray could have won a slam a year since his #1, I don't see why not, had he stayed healthy as the other guys.
Murray would have another major for sure. My guess being 3 majors. I doubt he would have more than that. It sucks that some think Stan is a better player than Murray. Murray is the 4th best player of this era by a long way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,124 Posts
Wawrinka is a bad match up for Nole and a good one for Federer. It wouldn't have made any difference to Federer if he peaked earlier than 2013 and would've only made things worse for Nole.
Only if he were again almost always placed in Djokovic HC half or quarter.

It can make a big difference though, if you play 5-setter vs Stan as Federer at AO'17 or as Djokovic had to many times at AO/USO and then fresher opponent in the next round, or if you are to play fresher Stan after a tough rubber in the previous round as Djokovic in RG'15 final.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,594 Posts
Murray, as great as he is, beat Federer once at a grand slam. Once, that was 2013 and needed 5 sets.
Stanimal beat him at RG in 2015, Fed was done for good on clay by then.

Put Murray and Stan back in Fed's heydays, take away Nadal on clay, and then try to overtake him. 27-30 titles, baby.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SetPointDown
1 - 13 of 13 Posts
Top