The Davis Cup quarterfinals are taking place around the world this weekend, when Novak Djokovic will make his return to the tennis court after losing early in Indian Wells and missing the next Masters 1000 event in Miami. Djokovic and the rest of his Serbian squad are hosting a Spanish side that is without Rafael Nadal. Perhaps the most intriguing tie features the United States and Australia, a battle that is highlighted by in-form competitors Jack Sock and Nick Kyrgios.
Preview and predictions:
United States vs. Australia
Where: Brisbane, Australia
Surface: Outdoor hard
Nothing, of course, is ever certain in Davis Cup—but this one has a good chance of all coming down to the doubles rubber. Kyrgios is ranked one spot below Sock (No. 16 and No. 15, respectively), but he is playing so well right now that he will be favored against both Sock (in a potential fourth rubber on Sunday) and John Isner (in Friday’s second rubber). Fellow Aussie Jordan Thompson is the least accomplished of the four singles nominees and will be a considerable underdog against Sock and Isner. With the Bryan brothers having retired from team duty, the Americans could go in any number of directions with their doubles duo. It may not matter, because John Peers and Sam Groth are a daunting pair for the Aussies.
Pick: Australia 3, United States 1
[polldaddy poll=9715879]
Great Britain vs. France
Where: Rouen, France
Surface: Indoor clay
Neither team has its ‘A’ player (or players, plural) on board this week. Andy Murray is out for Great Britain after skipping the Miami Masters because of an elbow injury. France is without Gael Monfils, Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Richard Gasquet, and Gilles Simon. The good news for France is that no nation is deeper in men’s singles. If each country needed more than handful of players for every tie, the Frenchmen would win the Davis Cup every single year. Lucas Pouille and Jeremy Chardy are coming to the rescue in Rouen, where Brits Kyle Edmund and Dan Evans may fail to find their footing on clay. This could be a clean sweep; giving Great Britain even one point (likely from Jamie Murray and Dominic Inglot in doubles) is somewhat generous.
Pick: France 3, Great Britain 1
[polldaddy poll=9717294]
Spain vs. Serbia
Where: Belgrade, Serbia
Surface: Indoor hard
It is safe to say the Djokovic is a question mark, given that he has played only six completed matches since the Australian Open. A possible elbow injury does not help matters. The good news for the world No. 2 is that he does not have to face Nadal this weekend—and not even Roberto Bautista Agut or Fernando Verdasco. Spain is going with Pablo Carreno Busta and Albert Ramos Vinolas in singles, while Serbia is well-stocked with Djokovic and Viktor Troicki. Marc Lopez will likely play doubles with Carreno Busta, giving Spain a formidable duo. Still, Nenad Zimonjic and any other Serb will have a good chance to take Saturday’s rubber.
Pick: Serbia 3, Spain 0
[polldaddy poll=9717295]
Italy vs. Belgium
Where: Charleroi, Belgium
Surface: Indoor hard
An in-form Fabio Fognini is the only thing that could save the Italians from doom and gloom in Belgium. In form was exactly what Fognini was in Miami, where he made a run to the semifinals before losing to Nadal. But wrist and foot issues (and his “brain,” according to Andreas Seppi) have knocked him out of this tie, so Italy is turning to Seppi and Poalo Lorenzi in singles. The visitors are staring at an especially difficult test because the Belgians, who finished runner-up in 2015, are loaded with David Goffin and “Mr. Davis Cup” Steve Darcis. Simone Bolelli (and likely Seppi) should be able to bag the doubles point for Italy, but it won’t be enough.
Pick: Belgium 3, Italy 1
[polldaddy poll=9716464]
who ya got?
Aussie, France and Serbia into SF, Italy to take it home at the deciding
Italy?????
Bamos Nick!
#ReverseTweenersAreEverywhere
#FDT
I read somewhere that Novak’s elbow and even the upper arm is still not 100%. He needs to take off and come back 100%. Here is a comparison of the intangibles between Novak, Roger and Rafa http://www.138mph.com/decoding-the-big-three-murray-the-intangibles/
I’ll pass.
The only intangible that matters is that Rafa and Nole at their best have the matches on their racquets when they meet Fed.
#FedfawnSpamIsEverywhere
Hawkeye “The only intangible that matters is that Rafa and Nole at their best have the matches on their racquets when they meet Fed”.
A littlebit correction:
“The only intangible that matters is that Rafa and Nole at their best have the matches on their racquets when they meet NOT-AT-HIS-BEST Fed.
I guess Fed was “NOT-AT-HIS-BEST” from 2008 to 2016 in slams on all surfaces then when he couldn’t beat Rafa on clay, grass and hard courts.
Wow, rare to hear that from a fedfawn.
#OhWhatTangledWebYouWeave
#Check
#AndMate
Oops I just had to check the meaning of intangible…my bad..
Rafa meeting and beating Fed at his best, from 2004 to 2010 at least!
That’s right, Lucky! Rafa consistently beat Fed at his best. No one else could do it. Not Muzz, not Nole. Now Fed is beating our Rafa not at his best and suddenly these results are taken to mean Fed is at his best!!! Hilarious! Unless old man Fed is doping!
This poster is the most clearest example of someone who believes that those who talk loud and those who talk often know it all. Someone in Washington will agree. Utter laughable comments which do nothing but show how much attention he/she really craves.
I had to look.
You know, like some people have to look at an accident? And, as expected, you didn’t disappoint. It was HILARIOUS!!!
So just how many Roger posters do you have hanging in your basement while you are writing this?
Kavita is the author of that blog. She is also pushing her blog on tennis-x as Aced out. She needs more footfalls on her site so she is probably going everywhere she can and botlike making some meaningless or at best shallow remarks as a prelude to her exhortation to visit her blog. She knows that, at least out of curiosity, a lot of posters would visit her site. So she doesn’t care if we find her a pest. She is getting footfalls. I only follow these two sites, tenngrand and tennis-x. She might be there like the plague on many other sites too.
Thanks Mary. I wasn’t planning on returning LOL.
She’s also pushing it at Tennis.com.
What a pest this Kavita is! I must admit that like Hawks, I too visited her blog out of curiosity. Shallow articles with poor analysis. Curious thing is, she seems to have some advertisements on her site. How did she get promoters for a substandard site like hers?
At first I did not mind her annoying posts. But now like chinese water torture the constant drip drip of these botlike posts is getting on my nerves.
no one is paying for advertising on that blog. Are we looking at the same one?
Ricky, I am sure we are looking at the same one as both of us would have clicked on the pest’s links. But I maybe mistaken about the advertisers paying her. There was an ad for zomatch and bay club and a bunch of pictures of products like apple cider vinegar and somewhere a line saying sposored by 3harmfulfoods.com and sponsored by capitalizingcalories. Maybe they were only sponsoring the pictures of the products, not her site? As you are the owner of a site, you can probably clarify what I thought was sponsorship? I really cannot believe she can get sponsors.
she puts those ads on there herself haha. Hoping to get clicks. Those aren’t actual advertisers.
ok, that explains it. Thanks!
Advertisements is done using Ad network that has nothing to do with the quality of a website, and the advertizers pay the ad networks that ultimately pay certain percentage to the website owners like 70 percent to 30 percent share to website owners.
Hey Kavita…I went to your blog and for me,it’s okay…If u keep coming with the good topics,i’m sure your blog will get a positive response from readers…Hope your blog will success in the future Kavita!!Keep up the good work!
Leave it to Ricky to suss out the truth about Kavita’s blog site!
?
If Henry II had met Kavita, he would have said
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome p(ri)est?”
3-2 USA: I think Sock gets it done against Thompson and in doubles and Isner closes it over Thompson. 3-2 France: I’m pretty sure Edmund’s favorite surface is clay, so I give him a solid chance against Pouille and Chardy but I think France will still win overall. 3-1 Serbia: I’ll give PCB the match against Troicki and that’s it for Spain. 3-0 Belgium: I think Bemelmans and De Loore clinch it even earlier than expected for the Belgians.
I agree with Benny. I think PCB will get it done over Troicki. It will be nice to see Nole playing to judge his level i.e. is he going to be a threat for Rafa?
According to the DC website Sock will not play the doubles. Johnson-Querrey will.
Was just guessing they would end up putting Sock in. Probably won’t now after he lost to Thompson. I guess the Aussies are gonna get this tie done.
So both Sock and Isner lost? If USA wins the doubles, I think it’ll depend on how Sock plays vs Kygrios in the singles rubber. If Sock loses then gone case, if he wins then I think Isner can win the last rubber.
Unless Fed is doping ( HGH) or is using magic or is not a human, he can’t be at his best at almost 36. This is the continuation of the weak era which started somewhere between 2014-2015. Whoever from the big 4 is in the best form ( among the four) is reaping the benefits. Nole benefitted in 2015 and part of 2016. Now Fed is benefiting. Unless injury strikes Rafa again, he is going to get the better of Fed, as Muzz did against Nole, in the second half. Also both Muzz and Nole might be back soon. Poor Rafa, he never gets a weak period. Fed got it twice, Nole in 2015-16. This weak era and ding dong battle between the declining big 4 will go on till somebody from nextgen or nextnextgen finally rises consistently above the field.
Mary, Rafa will be getting the benefit (of the weak era) soon starting with the clay season in 2017. Muzza got it during second half of 2016, though he had it for a short time. I hope Fed only benefits for a quarter at best this season!
Lucky, I hope you are right. I fervently pray that finally Rafa gets a weak era that he can take advantage of!
Hope Djoker is still in a slump and that Rafa takes back control on clay. I’m glad Fed is giving the run-up to RG a miss.
Australia over USA 3-1 I don’t think Sock can beat Kyrgios and I don’t think Johnson-Querry can beat anyone. Prove me wrong boys!
Serbia over Spain 5-0 – Serbia wins first 3 and the dead rubbers as well
France over GB – GB does not have a Davis Cup team without Andy
I’ll go along with Ricky on Belgium vs Italy
Luckystar,
“Rafa meeting and beating Fed at his best, from 2004 to 2010 at least!”.
Yes….but more than 70 percent of those wins were on CLAY. And those Fed clay suffered by defeats due to ridiculous number of matches played on CLAY (Thanks to incredibly weak ERA ON CLAY —
only Federer was competing Nadal on clay at that time and reaching Final, only to loose against better Clay court player) affected some of Federer’s NON-CLAY defeats too. Rafa did not do anything extra ordinary to be proud.
I dont know when Rafans will stop cashing Nadal’s Head to Head (due to certain factors) advantage and portraying it in false manner.
You talked as if clay doesn’t count, and that’s the bitter truth that Fed fanatics have to swallow.
Rafa won 10 out of 12 clay matches; Fed won 6 out of 10 HC/grass matches during the period 2004-2010. Rafa won 83% of clay matches and 40% of Grass/HC matches. So Fed wasn’t that much better than Rafa on grass/HCs whilst Rafa is very much better than Fed on clay! Even if they met fewer times on clay, Rafa would still come out on top in the H2H.
From 2004-2007, Fedal met 7 times on clay and 7 on grass/HCs. Rafa won 6 out of 7 on clay; Fed won 5 out of 7 on non clay surfaces and that’s when Rafa hadn’t reached his prime yet.
From 2008 to 2010 when Rafa reached his peak and Fed was still in his prime; they met 5 times on clay and only 3 times on non clay surfaces and Rafa was 4-1 on clay and 2-1 on non clay. In fact they had not met much on the HCs after Rafa hit his peak from 2008-2010 when Rafa had the upper hand on all surfaces except the indoor surfaces. Even if we consider Rafa was still in his peak in 2011/2012 when Fed was still in his prime, they’re 2-2 on HCs.
Don’t forget, prior to 2017, Rafa was 10-9 vs Fed on non clay surfaces, from 2004-2016 when Rafa had gone through pre prime, prime/peak, prime/off peak, and post prime; and Fed from peak to prime to post prime.
Rafa will always be much better on clay, and they’re close on HCs, grass but Fed is better on indoor HCs.(Of course that’s not going to say that Rafa is as proficient on grass as Fed; Fed’s records on grass is the best in the open era, it’s just that the Fedal matchup favors Rafa more than Fed).
Both Fedal are not in their prime now imo, so let’s see how things unfold from now on; 2017 is only into its second quarter and there are many more matches to be played; Fed is 3-0 now but we have to see how the rest of the season unfolds
So, in 2012, you think Federer was still in Prime being almost 32 years before the start of 2013. And right now in 2017, Rafa is still 30 and you are saying that Nadal is not in Prime.
Well, your logic has almost given me tuberculosis.
Like I said an abundance of matches had been played on CLAY during their rivalry redulting in large amount of Nadal wins on CLAY. And it helped him building his confidence that helped him getting some NON CLAY wins too like Wumbeldon 2008 and AO 2009. I am not even counting Federer’s mono issue here. I believe there must be No injury issue or excuse at all. If you are on court it means you are capable of play.
In 2012, Fed just reached 31 in August; he’s not 32 yet. He in 2012 was where Rafa is at now. Rafa will be 31 in June.
You’re the one not being consistent here, claiming that Fed was way way past his prime in 2012! You’re giving me heart attack here!
Saying that they met ridiculously many times on clay that affected Fed when he met Rafa was merely an excuse given by Fed and his supporters.
They first met on HC in 2004 and then in 2005 and they were 1-1; they met the third time and first on clay at FO 2005 and then on HC at Dubai 2006 and Rafa won both, so he was 3-1. Before Rafa beat Fed thrice on European clay in 2006, Rafa was already leading in the H2H, moreover Fed won at Wimbledon and TMC that year, so it’s 6-3 and where’s the ‘playing so much on clay affected Fed’s mentality’ when they played four times on clay and five on non clay?
In 2007 Fed did beat Rafa on clay at Hamburg and went on to beat Rafa at Wimbledon and TMC again and by then they had played 7 tims on clay and 7 on non clay; Rafa was 8-6 against Fed, again where’s the ‘meeting so much on clay that affected Fed’?
From 2008 onwards when Rafa hit his prime and reached his peak, it’s obvious Fed was no match for him too on non clay surfaces, so again it’s not clay that affected Fed, but the fact that Rafa could get the better of Fed even on grass Fed’s fav surface, and worse still, Rafa was beating Fed onHC at the AO when HC slams were Rafa’s least favored among the slams.
It was when Rafa was injured in 2009 that Fed took advantage of it when he’s the second best behind Rafa and both Djoko and Murray were not ready to capitalize. From 2011 it was all Djoko with the exception of 2013 and second half of 2016.
Of course we are in 2017 now, when both Fedal are past their prime and their peak; Fed is on one of his fav surfaces so far this year and has done very well, we’ll see how Rafa fares on clay now that he’s past his prime.
Correction: and those defeats suffered by Federer due to ridiculus number of matches played on CLAY…
Correction: and those CLAY defeats suffered by Federer due to ridiculus number of matches played on CLAY…
You said it’s a weak era on clay when only Fed was a threat but how about Fed on grass and on the HCs during those times when he was winning his non clay slams from 2003-2007? Who were his threats on those surfaces?? Not a strong grass or HC era too!
Also, from 2011 there’s Djoko on clay and Rafa was beating him at the FO, and Djoko was winning Masters on clay and beating Rafa in some of them; how’s that for weak clay era?
Right from 2012, only Djokovic was competing clay because Federer was already WAY WAY past his prime . AND Nadal had again no competetion on Clay other than Djokovic, just like before 2006 to 2011, Nadal had no competetion on Clay apart from Federer and Nadal just being the better player took advantage of it. In a nutshell, if you remove Federer from 2006 to 2011 and Djokovic from 2012 to onword, you may agree that there was absolutely ZERO competetion on Clay.
In 2012 Fed was way way past his prime? How then could he become no.1 for 17 weeks? How come Fed could reach the SF of FO and it’s Djoko who beat him there? Should I also say that right now Rafa is way way past his prime too, being of the same age as the Fed of 2012?
Also, Fed only had a young Rafa as his main opponent at Wimbledon in 2006/2007 and Roddick in 2004/2005, a player he owned, so how was that a strong era?
Who exactly did Fed have to beat on grass all these years? Young Rafa, Roddick whom he owned all along, Djoko who beat him two out of three times and Murray who had not beaten him at a slam save that AO2013 SF.
At the FO, there were/are Fed who was no.1 player from 2005-2008 FO, and Djoko the no.3 player in the SF; and Djoko from 2012-2014 as the no.1 player; Sod in 2009 who beat Rafa and then beat Fed in 2010 but lost to Rafa after that.
How was it that it’s a weak era on clay but not a weak era on grass?
Anyway, this is a D.C. thread so we shouldn’t be posting here about Fedal when it’s not related to D.C. ties.
approved
If Rafa was that ‘good’ that he was beating ‘peak’ federer from 2004-2010, then why he has been so cluless against Djokovic against Djokovic since the time Djokovic has touched his peak from 2011. I mean Nadal has almost the same age age as Djokovic (lesser than 1 year older to Djokovic). From 2011 to 2016, during the time Djokovic attained peak, Nadal and Djokovic played 26 matches and Nadal has only 7 wins against Djokovic — 5 of which are on clay — and Djokovic has 19 wins out of which 12 went in straight sets. I mean almost having the same age, but Djokovic after reaching prime conpletely thrashed Nadal. I mean how on earth Nadal can be so sloppy against almost the same age rival when the otherone got his peak?
During Djokovic’s absolute prime years that 2011 and 2014-2016, Nadal and Djokovic played 16 matches, and Nadal won only 1 match — again on clay, while Djokovic winning freaking 15 matches — 10 of them in straight sets. In a nutshell, Djokovic did not let Nadal even touch against him.
Now if you look at Federer’s (past 33 years) performance against Djokovic in 2014-2016, he was the only one competing against Djokovic with 6-8 H2H against djokovic in these years being past 33 years of age. This suggests how massively good Federer is, giving competetion even in current era and this suggets how massively good he really was during his dominance 2003-2007.
Match up, don’t you know that? Djoko was always better than Rafa on the HCs, since 2008! Check their records!
Notice that it took Djoko till 2015 to equal his H2H with Rafa, at 23-23 and four of those were done in 2015 when Rafa was in a slump.
Rafa vs Djoko:
2011 – 0:6
2012 – 3:1
2013 – 3:3
2014. – 1:2
2015. – 0:4
2016. – 0:3
No coincidence that after 2014, Rafa didn’t get any win as he was in a slump.
Anyway, this is not the thread to discuss about Fedal, this is for D.C. ties.
When a player does not win it necessarily does not mean that he has been in slump, sometimes the competetion gets player loosing perceiving as if there has been a slump. And there is no shame in loosing when you fight during competetion.
Anyways, I wish Rafa best of luck for clay and entire season and hoping to see him in his full power for the rest of the seadon and I am going to end this debate here.
Rafa was in a slump in 2015, you can’t deny that! Why the competition suddenly become better then but not now when effectively it’s the same few players at the top? You don’t seem to have any logic in your arguements! How often you saw Rafa losing 20 times in a season?
Rafa was in a slump from 2015 to 2016 whilst Fed wasn’t. Don’t just pick and choose periods that suit your agenda. If Fed was so good, how come he lost so many times to Rafa, Djoko and Delpo in 2013? See I can also pick and choose what I want to make my point!
Over all, Rafa is better than Djoko on clay and Djoko is better on HCs; can say the same for Fed against Rafa. Rafa is overwhelmingly better than Fed on clay, and it’s close to Fed on non clay. Djoko is about equal with Fed on all surfaces, maybe slightly better than Fed on HCs.
I mean ‘can’t say the same for Fed’!!!
I was not taking a certain period that suited against Federer. In fact I was accounting the period from 2011-2016 when Djokovic got his prime. And stated the results to you during those years suggesting why Nadal could not stand any chance against Djokovic while gaving almost the same age, while Federer being older 5+ years way past his prime was still there to compete against peak Djokovic. I am neither diminshing Nadal nor prausing Federer. The thing is when you started like Nadal beating ‘peak Fed’ and bla bla bla….I thought to bring you a notice how good Nadal was against’peak djokovic’ considering almost having the same age.
We can not absolutely say that Djokovic being equal to Fed on all surfaces and being slightly better than Fed on Hard surface because we never know if Peak Djokovic would have stood a chance against peak Federer. Djokovic started challenging Federer in 2011 when Federer staring age, even then Federer gave him stiff competetion – probabily the only one giving Djokovic some serious competetion against Djokovic’s absolute prime years. While Djokovic has no clue against Federer before 2011.
In a nushell, lets end this discussion for the sake of beautiful tennis that is ahead us and I truly believe Nadal will be a major power in this years alongwith Federer and may be other ones will be too. And I would love to see Nadal and Federer sweeping all grandslams this year…:)
Please refer to my post of 10:50am.
I repeat, it’s just that Djoko was better than Rafa on HCs all along and Rafa better on clay all along, until Rafa’s slump from 2015-2016. During that period even Cuervas, Thiem, Foggy, Stan could beat him on clay, not to mention Murray too. If that’s not a slump then I don’t know what is.
Note that from 2012-2014 Rafa vs Djoko was 7-6, hardly any advantage to Djoko. You isolate 2011 but disregard 2008-2010 when Djoko started reaching his prime and had won a slam in 2008 at AO, and was chasing the no.2 ranking in 2008/2009 and also 2010. Rafa didn’t do badly vs Djoko then too, was 10:5 vs Djoko, and so it was 10:11 from 2008-2011.
You can see how close their H2H was from 2008-2014 – 17:17 when both were in their prime/peak and prime/off peak!!
Nah, that year Murray was also giving Djoko stiff competition, esp at Rome in the SF. It’s not just about Fedal, there’s Murray too.
In fact Murray was also challeging for the slams and challenging Djoko in 2012-2013 when he beat Djoko at USO and Wimbledon. Murray was stopped by his back injury when he needed surgery.
“You can see how close their H2H was from 2008-2014 – 17:17 when both were in their prime/peak and prime/off peak!!”
You are saying Djokovic chasing ranking 2 and won his first slam in 2008, hence was already establishing his peak.
So, Nadal infact achieved No.2 ranking in 2005 and also won his first slam in 2005, then why you dont admit that Nadal was having peak in 2005?
That is the tragedy with you guys that you contradict your own opinions to put Nadal in the best possible position depending upon whome is being compared in which with Nadal.
Correction: That is the tragedy with you guys that you contradict your own opinions to put Nadal in the best possible position depending upon whome is being compared in which way with Nadal.
Nope, do remember in 2008 there were three of them -Fed, Rafa and Djoko so Djoko had to be in his prime to be able to challenge Fedal and on all surfaces (reaching SF at FO and USO, won AO. He reached SF at Wimbledon in 2007). In 2005 there was only Fed, and Rafa was basically chasing Fed; at that time Fed already owned the field and only Rafa could challenge him and on clay only, not at the non clay slams yet. To say that Rafa reached his prime in 2005 was incorrect, as he wasn’t good on the other surfaces at the slams yet. Rafa should be in his prime from 2007.
Do remember that in 2008 Djoko was already beating both Fed and Rafa (he had beaten them in 2007 already).
So you can see how weak the field was in 2005, when a 19 yo who’s great on clay but done nothing at the non clay slams could reach no.2 in the rankings!
For God sake dont sort out only same stuff that suits Rafa. Rafa not winning non clay slams between 2005 to 2007 meant he was just not good enough to win on Non clay while he was already being a great player in that era. Getting a no 2 rank and winning 1 slam suggests that you are having you peak. Trust me if Rafa would have beaten Fed in 2009 Wembeldon instead of 2008, you would claimed to reach rafa appraching peak in 2009 as he would not have been good on non clay before 2009 then. So, its upto you if you only include only those years when Rafa finally won his first non clay slam.
Nah, I’ve always maintained that Rafa should have his best year in 2009 when he’s at his peak and if not for the injury would have done better than his 2008.
Also, please read carefully, I said Rafa reached his prime in 2007, when he was making finals at non clay slams or at least the QF. It’s not about winning at the slams only, but reaching at least the later stages at the slams and consistently, not just at only one slam. And, how’s it possible that Rafa having reached his prime in 2007 and IF he hadn’t won AO in 2009, he would be considered as not reaching his prime? Does that sound any logical to you?? Don’t you think you’re asking a redundant question?
How do you explain that a 19yo guy winning only a clay slam and doing nothing at the other slams, and winning majority of his points on clay, to have reached his prime, when later on in his career, he had proven that he was more than capable of winning the non clay slams a couple of times on each surface?
It seems that you’re the one who’s being inconsistent here, saying that Fed was way way past his prime in 2012, even when he had reached no.1 for 17 weeks, won a slam and was YE no.2 that year. Would you say the same of Rafa if he does all those this season, or of Djoko if he does that next year?
The whole ‘peaks’ and ‘primes’ concept is something that people argue about all the time, but it’s really very difficult to assess, and once you introduce hypotheticals you’re opening Pandora’s box . I would say Fed’s prime was 06-07, but he has had other periods of playing at a very high level, sometimes playing tougher opponents, and sometimes being weaker in certain areas (e.g. past his peak in terms of endurance) yet better or equal in his serving, general style of play etc. I would not say he was playing in his prime in 2012, but nor was he way past it, he was still competing at a very high level. Note: a lot of this type of discussion depends on how narrowly or broadly you define/think of a player’s ‘prime’.
If Rafa wins a GS, makes #1 and is YE #2 will he be way past his prime? I don’t think you can really answer that based entirely on results, it would depend on what he looks like when he’s playing. That said, he, like Fed, could do all that stuff while he’s past his prime, yeah. Like Novak and Roger, I think he’s capable of playing a level below his ‘peaks’ (e.g. 2008, 2010) and still winning a slam. In a sense it’s harder for him than it is Roger, because he needs to be able to rely on his body for an extended period and he has struggled to get that in the latter part of his career. That said, such is his dominance on clay, that he can remain in the mix even when he’s not near his peak (e.g., right now, nearing 31 years of age).
Yep, to say that Fed in 2012 was way way past his prime was border on ridiculous when he was no.1 and then no.2 and won a slam. So if Rafa does the same this season, incidentally at the same age as Fed was in 2012, are we to say that Rafa is also way way past his prime? That sounds ridiculous too!
Also, some Fed supporters claimed that Fed reached his prime relatively late, at age 22 and claimed that he’s way past his prime in 2012 at age 31, so Fed has relatively short prime when the same people claimed that Rafa reached his prime at 19 and until now he’s still in his prime as he hasn’t hit 31 yet! So Rafa has a very long prime!
**Correction to my post at 1.18pm; it should read ‘ if Rafa were to win Wimbledon in 2009, instead of 2008 – it didn’t matter as he had reached his prime or at least reaching his prime in 2007, having made inroads at the other slams.
We are talking about ATGs here, not any other ordinary players when these other players could only make a good run at a slam once or at most twice in the blue moon.
“For God sake dont sort out only same stuff that suits Rafa.”
Well you do the same for fedfan…
“Correction: and those CLAY defeats suffered by Federer due to ridiculus number of matches played on CLAY…”
So let’s look at that, After Rafa turned 22, Federer lost SIX straight slam meetings to Rafa failing to beat him at a slam for over nine years, of which only TWO were on clay (THREE on hard court and one on grass).
Asif, you make claims about Rafan’s bias yet do the exact same yourself.
HILLARIOUS!
Back to D.C., can someone tell me what’s the score between USO and Australia? Who won which rubber, please and thank you.
Aussies up 2-0.
Kyrgios beat Isner 75 76 76.
Thompson beat Sock in four.
🙂
USA might win the rest! Sock’s loss was a surprise. But Kyrgios isn’t very consistent either so he could lose to Sock, who knows!
Yeah but Kyrgios has been very consistent this year especially on the big stage and he’s fully engaged with the AO crowd backing him.
Just can’t see Sock beating him and AO has a great doubles pair whereas US really doesn’t.
How was Fed massively good in 2004-2007 when the field was such that a 19yo who’s very good on clay but not on the other surfaces could still be no.2? How was he massively good when he was relegated to no.2 once his main rival hit his peak and he himself was still very much in his prime?
Fed capitalized during 2015 when Rafa was in a slump, but he couldn’t beat an on fire Djoko at the slams,not forgetting losing early at AO to Seppi. Fed is now capitalizing on Djoko’s slump so far this season, credit to him for he’s always ready to capitalize when opportunities present themselves.
Rafa was massively good, too. 🙂 They were both massively good back then. Unless “massively good” means never losing. In that case no one has ever been massively good. In 2005, Rafa and Fed both won what, like 10-11 titles? I’d say that’s pretty massive in my book. But the meaning of “massively good” is very subjective to each person, so I respect whatever your definition of it is, Luckystar. 🙂
Kevin, you should check with Asif what’s his/her definition of massively good!
Asif is confused.
DC again; Djoko looking quite alright in this rubber against ARV, leading 5-4 in the second set after bagging the first set.
Pouille of France about to win the rubber in straight sets against Kyle Edmund.
Spain, as a country, has nothing to prove in DC.
I stopped reading Asif’s posts after he claimed that giving credit to Rafa’s wins on clay is presenting a false picture.
If you read it again understanding it in actual context, you might realize I did not say in your context.
Lucky,
“So you can see how weak the field was in 2005, when a 19 yo who’s great on clay but done nothing at the non clay slams could reach no.2 in the rankings!”
You must know Rafa being just so good on Clay sweeping all points on Clay and Federer was just on ANOTHER LEVEL between that time, completely dominating the tennis apart from clay leaving no room for other players to get certain point. So, if you know the basic math, you must realize that was natural for Nadal to be at #2 due to his whooping Clay event points and FEDERER being #1 due to his non Clay dominance over the rest of the field.
“The rest of the field” where no other player could make it to more than four slam finals over a six year Weak Era from 2002-2007.
Fed made 14 leaving 34 other spots for other players. Roddick managed four, the same number as a very young Nadal.
Fed had ZERO competition other than clay.
Weak, weak, weak.
HILLARIOUS!
Federer and Nadal had turned pro with almost 2 to 3 years gap. It technicaly means they belong to pretty much same era. Its not like Nadal turned pro after decade. Federer winning his first slam after 5 years from being pro, Nadal winning first slam after 4 years from being pro. Federer has won more slams than Nadal after Nadal had one won his first grandslam. Just like people here are saying Djoko was having peak in 2008 because he had a slam then and was chasing No2,. Nadal had also won his first slam and was no 2 in 2005, justifying your own criteria that he was already achieving his peak in 2005 and was almost having the same era considering Fed won more slams than Nadal after Nadal won his 1st grandslam.
Don’t understand what youre posting.
I’ve explained in my earlier post about the difference between Rafa and Djoko when they won their first slam. I don’t see how difficult was that for you to understand.
Also to say that Fed swept through the non clay surfaces so others couldn’t have a chance doesn’t explain why a Roddick or a Hewitt couldn’t at least reach a slam final consistently on the HCs for examples and reached the finals at the Masters etc to beat the young Rafa for the no.2 position, when HCs form a major part of the season.
In fact Rafa in 2005 had only one third of his ranking points coming from the HCs, and if Roddick or Hewitt for example could reach the HC finals consistently at the slams and Masters and did reasonably well on grass, one of them could have displaced Rafa for the no.2 position even when Rafa was winning many titles on clay and three on HCs.
It’s difficult for Asif because of his confirmatory bias and it doesn’t fit his narrative.
As with all of these subjective debates.
#Reusable
So much for the clay argument then LOL.
Asif is confused and moving the goalposts again.
#irrationalAsif
Rafa only started playing in the Atp tour in mid 2003, Fed started in mid 1999. Fed played his slams starting in 1999, Rafa only in 2003 so Rafa was four years later than Fed, and so I don’t think you can call them to be of the same generation.
Rafa is of the same generation as Djoko, Murray, Delpo, Cilic, Monfils, Almagro….
And Gasquet, Berdych, Stan….