FEDERER v NADAL V DJOKOVIC (etc) - MOD NOTE 1ST POST

duffman13

MOD NOTE - AS THIS CONVERSATION COMES UP EVERY TIME THERE'S A SLAM AND WE GET AN INFLUX OF POSTERS, THERE IS NOW A DEDICATED THREAD FOR IT.
PLEASE KEEP ALL "GOAT" ARGUING IN HERE.
PLEASE KEEP IT CIVIL. ATTACK THE POST NOT THE POSTER. ANY BAD BEHAVIOUR WILL RESULT IN WARNINGS, BANS, THREAD CLOSURE etc.

walshb wrote: »

A 2011/2015 Nole would have been too strong for Fed yesterday. No doubt..

And a peak Fed would have been too strong for a 2011 Nole. Pointless debate, best man won this years tournament albeit not a classic tournament by any stretch.

walshb

duffman13 wrote: »

And a peak Fed would have been too strong for a 2011 Nole. Pointless debate, best man won this years tournament albeit not a classic tournament by any stretch.

Peak Fed (whenever you think that was) may or may not have been to strong.....

2011 Nole and 2015 Nole would have been hell for any Federer.

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Peak Fed (whenever you think that was) may or may not have been to strong.....

2011 Nole and 2015 Nole would have been hell for any Federer.

2011 Federer (not the best version of Federer at all) beat 2011 Novak in the French Open, the same Novak who was beating Nadal at will on clay up to then. Federer is better now than in 2011.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

2011 Federer (not the best version of Federer at all) beat 2011 Novak in the French Open, the same Novak who was beating Nadal at will on clay up to then. Federer is better now than in 2011.

Like I said, Nole would have been hell for him. 2015 and 2011. Picking a match here and there. No point in doing that. Look at the overall picture and you can see that Nole would have been hell.

Look at their head to heads in big matches, plural.......Nole usually bested him. It's all about styles. Similar to boxers. Nole's style matches up very well against Federer.

A lot is made of peak this and that.

For me peak Nole was 2011 and 2015. Peak Roger is very difficult to say. Success wise it was 2006/2007, but that doesn't always tell the picture, as Nole wasn't near the force back then compared to later..

Looking through the years I think 2009 was a huge year for Roger. He was playing brilliant tennis, and may well have been a better overall player than his 2006 and 2007 self. Also, last year he was playing off the charts...

It would be almost a split between his best day and Nole's best day......they are that close...

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Like I said, Nole would have been hell for him. 2015 and 2011. Picking a match here and there. No point in doing that. Look at the overall picture and you can see that Nole would have been hell.

Look at their head to heads in big matches, plural.......Nole usually bested him. It's all about styles. Similar to boxers. Nole's style matches up very well against Federer.

A lot is made of peak this and that.

For me peak Nole was 2011 and 2015. Peak Roger is very difficult to say. Success wise it was 2006/2007, but that doesn't always tell the picture, as Nole wasn't near the force back then compared to later..

Looking through the years I think 2009 was a huge year for Roger. He was playing brilliant tennis, and may well have been a better overall player than his 2006 and 2007 self. Also, last year he was playing off the charts...

It would be almost a split between his best day and Nole's best day......they are that close...

Federer has more peak years than Novak. That’s the big difference. Federer won 11 of 16 slams from 2004-2007. His win percentage in those years were 93, 95, 95 and 88.

Novak was sublime in 2011 and 2015, and for half of 2016. In between he ticked over with a slam a year but not dominance. His peak is arguably as good as Fed’s peak but it was not long lived like Fed’s.

His win percentage from 2011 to 2016 is 92, 86, 89, 88, 93, 88.

Novak is only 23-22 up on H2H. And Novak is lucky he didn’t face Roger last year or this year or he’d be behind if so.

walshb

Exactly my point. Very hard to find Fed's peak, or absolute peak. He has been that brilliant for so long.

I still believe that over ten matches across all surfaces best vs best it would be razor close. I would have to put my money on Nole. I think he was just a little stronger.

Overall tennis greatness as regards career, longevity, style of play, achievements I believe Roger to stand alone!

The Golden Miller

Federer fans like to talk about his form dipping here and there to explain why he was roundly beaten be Nadal and Novak again and again. The reality is he was consistently near his best for years, and the minute he got some real competition he stopped winning so many slams, and started winning again when either Nadal was injured, or all the top players as is currently the case. He's a brilliantly fluid and technically complete player, as much as you can be, but that doesnt always mean you're the best.

No one hit for the lines with the force and aggression that Novak did in his pomp. He was generally unplayable. Has anyone ever seen Nadal put on the ropes and get pounded like that again and again? Novak and a young McEnroe at their peak were the two most aggressive and dominant players I've ever seen. Had you on the back foot from the off. A tour de force

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Federer fans like to talk about his form dipping here and there to explain why he was roundly beaten be Nadal and Novak again and again. The reality is he was consistently near his best for years, and the minute he got some real competition he stopped winning so many slams, and started winning again when either Nadal was injured, or all the top players as is currently the case. He's a brilliantly fluid and technically complete player, as much as you can be, but that doesnt always mean you're the best.

No one hit for the lines with the force and aggression that Novak did in his pomp. He was generally unplayable. Has anyone ever seen Nadal put on the ropes and get pounded like that again and again? Novak and a young McEnroe at their peak were the two most aggressive and dominant players I've ever seen. Had you on the back foot from the off. A tour de force

So what you are saying is Federer wins slams depending on the strength of the opposition, but Rafa and Novak won slams because they were simply brilliant.

Federer’s form never dipped but that of Rafa and Djokovic did dip.

Convenient that.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

So what you are saying is Federer wins slams depending on the strength of the opposition, but Rafa and Novak won slams because they were simply brilliant.

Convenient that.

At what point could you say Federer was better than Novak or Nadal when they were both fully fit, particularly after Novak stepped up to the plate? But they were just periods that coralated with Federer declining before he peaked again when they were injured? Convienient that.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

At what point could you say Federer was better than Novak or Nadal when they were both fully fit, particularly after Novak stepped up to the plate? But they were just periods that coralated with Federer declining before he peaked again when they were injured? Convienient that.

Federer’s peak did not overlap with Nadal’s peak or Djokovic’s peak.

Maybe Nadal’s and Djokovic’s peaks overlapped.

But Federer is 5 and 6 years older than the other two. He was operating at a high level but he was not at his absolute peak when Nadal and Djokovic were at their peak.

It’s funny how people like to disregard Federer’s early slams by saying Nadal was too young, but will never disregard Nadal and Djokovic’s slams by saying Federer was a bit old. Double standards.

Staying injury free is a part of the sport btw. I hate to burst your bubble on that one.

walshb

Nobody can really give Fed's absolute peak...

But, it is fact that during the years 2006 - 2015 Nole and Nadal bested him as much as he bested them.

The excuses made from both sides is ridiculous...

Hand on heart I would back Nole and Nadal over Fed when all at their finest.....I mean via razor close matches.....

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer’s peak did not overlap with Nadal’s peak or Djokovic’s peak.

Maybe Nadal’s and Djokovic’s peaks overlapped.

But Federer is 5 and 6 years older than the other two. He was operating at a high level but he was not at his absolute peak when Nadal and Djokovic were at their peak.

It’s funny how people like to disregard Federer’s early slams by saying Nadal was too young, but will never disregard Nadal and Djokovic’s slams by saying Federer was a bit old. Double standards.

Staying injury free is a part of the sport btw. I hate to burst your bubble on that one.

It's not a like for like analogy though. Nadal and Novak were only developing, just as Federer once did; well Nadal was morso adapting to other surfaces. Unless you're lleyton Hewitt, that's par for the course. Declining is alot more vague, and I see no indication that Federer declined to a lesser level. When Nadal was injured Federer carried on as before, winning slams in the same convincing fashion. Fluid natural players tend to stay at their peak, or to a level close to it for longer, just look at osullivan in the snooker, it takes less out of them. Saying Federer declined is just a convienient cop out for those fanboys unable to admit someone actually matched and bested their hero that they thought was untouchable.

dominatinMC

This debate again! :pac: Very hard to compare and conclude, but it's obvious (as in the facts and records show us) that Nadal and Djokovic had Federers number for a long time. His match-ups with Djokovic were more even, the h2h with Nadal tells its own story. Of course, every match, every year is different, with different factors and circumstances at play every time so it is hard to conclude who would beat who in a hypothetical scenario.

Nevertheless, the best indicator, and the one I often think of, is Wimbledon 08. Here we have Federer at age (26 - hardly "declining") and Nadal at 21/22. Fed's favourite surface too. And he was beaten, marginally. Again, it was only one match, but I would argue that it tells us a lot about this debate.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Nobody can really give Fed's absolute peak...

But, it is fact that during the years 2006 - 2015 Nole and Nadal bested him as much as he bested them.

The excuses made from both sides is ridiculous...

Hand on heart I would back Nole and Nadal over Fed when all at their finest.....I mean via razor close matches.....

I wonder how many Federer fans would stake their life savings on peak Federer beating peak Novak or Nadal. If they had to put their money where their mouth is, I think deep down they know they'd be on to a loser, while a Nadal or Novak fan would be quietly very confident. Maybe this is where the Federer fans insecurity comes from and the need to champion him as the 'GOAT' every time he takes a piss. Personally I've no horse in the race, I've just seen what I've seen, and that is Novak and Nadal roundly beat Federer. And to my mind, a peak Federer or a Federer very close to his peak. Apply sustained pressure and a surprising amount of unforced errors will come

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

It's not a like for like analogy though. Nadal and Novak were only developing, just as Federer once did; well Nadal was morso adapting to other surfaces. Unless you're lleyton Hewitt, that's par for the course. Declining is alot more vague, and I see no indication that Federer declined to a lesser level. When Nadal was injured Federer carried on as before, winning slams in the same convincing fashion. Fluid natural players tend to stay at their peak, or to a level close to it for longer, just look at osullivan in the snooker, it takes less out of them. Saying Federer declined is just a convienient cop out for those fanboys unable to admit someone actually matched and bested their hero that they thought was untouchable.

Are you seriously comparing snooker to tennis. Athletics would be a better comparison. Look at Bolt last year. 30 years old and past it. He was beaten into 3rd at the Worlds. He could have won. He was so close. His start cost him. If he continued for another few years he might win another title, win some big races, just as Federer has, but the frequency of such wins becomes less and less against the younger guys at their peak.

When Nadal was injured Federer beat Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. He should have been 2 sets down, and really was lucky to win. Hardly convincing. 2005 Roger smashed Roddick off the court. Face it, his best was 04-07.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I wonder how many Federer fans would stake their life savings on peak Federer beating peak Novak or Nadal.

I would, 100%. The fact is, in 50 years, Federer will be the name by which this era is defined. Nadal and Djokovic will then be mentioned as his rivals. Sad but true for the haters.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing snooker to tennis. Athletics would be a better comparison. Look at Bolt last year. 30 years old and past it. He was beaten into 3rd at the Worlds. He could have won. He was so close. His start cost him. If he continued for another few years he might win another title, win some big races, just as Federer has, but the frequency of such wins becomes less and less against the younger guys at their peak.

When Nadal was injured Federer beat Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. He should have been 2 sets down, and really was lucky to win. Hardly convincing. 2005 Roger smashed Roddick off the court. Face it, his best was 04-07.

So, best vs. best in 10 matches....on hard court outdoors (kind of fair surface for them all) who wins and are they close?

It's like you won't give Nadal and Nole their props here

Can you even entertain the possibility of Nole and Nadal beating Fed more times than losing to him when all are at "peak?"

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I would, 100%. The fact is, in 50 years, Federer will be the name by which this era is defined. Nadal and Djokovic will then be mentioned as his rivals. Sad but true for the haters.

Then you'd be a clown to do so......

You must have missed all their epic matches through the years to come up with that....

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

When Nadal was injured Federer beat Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. He should have been 2 sets down, and really was lucky to win. Hardly convincing. 2005 Roger smashed Roddick off the court. Face it, his best was 04-07.

Roddick played out of his skin. Brilliant tournament for him. Served like a beast. RF played superbly that day and served even better than Andy...

He was not lucky to win. He went out and won....you may get lucky breaks here and there, but that doesn't define a 5 set slam final win. Roger played exceptionally well to win the 2009 SW19 title.

You constantly throw up excuses in these debates for Roger....a player I have pretty much always rooted for. But I can be objective.

Chivito550

dominatinMC wrote: »

This debate again! :pac: Very hard to compare and conclude, but it's obvious (as in the facts and records show us) that Nadal and Djokovic had Federers number for a long time. His match-ups with Djokovic were more even, the h2h with Nadal tells its own story. Of course, every match, every year is different, with different factors and circumstances at play every time so it is hard to conclude who would beat who in a hypothetical scenario.

Nevertheless, the best indicator, and the one I often think of, is Wimbledon 08. Here we have Federer at age (26 - hardly "declining") and Nadal at 21/22. Fed's favourite surface too. And he was beaten, marginally. Again, it was only one match, but I would argue that it tells us a lot about this debate.

Federer was suffering from Glandular fever in 2008 though. Nadal made a dogs dinner of that match. He was 2 sets and a break up and nearly let it slip.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I wonder how many Federer fans would stake their life savings on peak Federer beating peak Novak or Nadal. If they had to put their money where their mouth is, I think deep down they know they'd be on to a loser, while a Nadal or Novak fan would be quietly very confident. Maybe this is where the Federer fans insecurity comes from and the need to champion him as the 'GOAT' every time he takes a piss. Personally I've no horse in the race, I've just seen what I've seen, and that is Novak and Nadal roundly beat Federer. And to my mind, a peak Federer or a Federer very close to his peak. Apply sustained pressure and a surprising amount of unforced errors will come

This is a hilarious post. Completely anecdotal. Ridiculous stuff.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Then you'd be a clown to do so......

You must have missed all their epic matches through the years to come up with that....

They would have had more epic matches if Nadal had not kept losing to Darcis, Rosol and the great Dustin Brown... LOL

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer was suffering from Glandular fever in 2008 though. Nadal made a dogs dinner of that match. He was 2 sets and a break up and nearly let it slip.

Another sh1tty excuse......

RF and Nadal played brilliant tennis that day...Nadal barely won...

dominatinMC

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I would, 100%. The fact is, in 50 years, Federer will be the name by which this era is defined. Nadal and Djokovic will then be mentioned as his rivals. Sad but true for the haters.

Of course Fed will define this era! He has the most GS, and until someone can overtake that record, he will be remembered as the dominant force in tennis, and of this era in particular. However, tennis fans will know how competitive and compelling this era was and that, on any given day, any of the Big3 could have beaten the other. The simple facts (h2h records being one) is that the probability of Nadal or Djokovic beating Federer during this era (which isn't over yet) is higher than the converse happening. There is no denying that, no matter what spin (no pun intended) you put on it

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

So, best vs. best in 10 matches....on hard court outdoors (kind of fair surface for them all) who wins and are they close?

It's like you won't give Nadal and Nole their props here

Can you even entertain the possibility of Nole and Nadal beating Fed more times than losing to him when all are at "peak?"

Nadal’s record is skewed by clay. He only has 4 slams on hard court to Federer’s 11. That’s not close at all. On grass he had 2 to Federer’s 8.

What I will say about Nadal is that his dominance on clay is the greatest dominance by a single player on a single court type we’ve ever seen, even eclipsing Sampras and Federer on grass.

But away from clay he has 6 slams. It’s not a massive number. On grass and hard court Federer is a couple of notches above in terms of consistency, dominance, longevity and achievements.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

They would have had more epic matches if Nadal had not kept losing to Darcis, Rosol and the great Dustin Brown... LOL

True...

But you still need to focus on the 40-45 matches that they all played against each other......then tell me that you'd 100 percent back Roger when all at "peak."

ballyargus

In honesty, with hypothetical peaks, I'd back Fed over Djok, Nadal over Fed and Djokovic over Nadal.

A lot of the debate is very silly as one of Federer's best weapons now is his backhand which was exploited by everyone when he was at his physical peak.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing snooker to tennis. Athletics would be a better comparison. Look at Bolt last year. 30 years old and past it. He was beaten into 3rd at the Worlds. He could have won. He was so close. His start cost him. If he continued for another few years he might win another title, win some big races, just as Federer has, but the frequency of such wins becomes less and less against the younger guys at their peak.

When Nadal was injured Federer beat Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. He should have been 2 sets down, and really was lucky to win. Hardly convincing. 2005 Roger smashed Roddick off the court. Face it, his best was 04-07.

Didn't he smash Roddick the next twice they played? I think most people would put that down to Roddick, a shadow of the player he once was, having an indian summer and getting on a roll. Again nitpicking as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. You'd swear no one else had run Federer close in an individual match before.

Again, any time Nadal or the top competition was injured, Federer continued winning slams the way he always done previously, just as he is doing now years later. So I see very little evidence, other than the say so of Federer fans, that he had declined by circa 2011/12/13

Chivito550

dominatinMC wrote: »

Of course Fed will define this era! He has the most GS, and until someone can overtake that record, he will be remembered as the dominant force in tennis, and of this era in particular. However, tennis fans will know how competitive and compelling this era was and that, on any given day, any of the Big3 could have beaten the other. The simple facts (h2h records being one) is that the probability of Nadal or Djokovic beating Federer during this era (which isn't over yet) is higher than the converse happening. There is no denying that, no matter what spin (no pun intended) you put on it

But the probability of Nadal losing to somebody like Muller or Verdasco was a hell of a lot higher than for Federer to do so. That is fact. Nadal has had some dreadful slip ups in slams while Federer usually goes deep in slams.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal’s record is skewed by clay. He only has 4 slams on hard court to Federer’s 11. That’s not close at all. On grass he had 2 to Federer’s 8.

What I will say about Nadal is that his dominance on clay is the greatest dominance by a single player on a single court type we’ve ever seen, even eclipsing Sampras and Federer on grass.

But away from clay he has 6 slams. It’s not a massive number. On grass and hard court Federer is a couple of notches above in terms of consistency, dominance, longevity and achievements.

You still have not answered the question

Best of ten matches outdoor hard-court who wins between Nadal and RF and Nole and RF?

Is it clear to RF, or close to RF?

I personally cannot see it clear for RF or clear for Nadal and Nole.....

I would bet on Nole and Nadal, but just about.

dominatinMC

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer was suffering from Glandular fever in 2008 though. Nadal made a dogs dinner of that match. He was 2 sets and a break up and nearly let it slip.

Ah here we are, the Federer fanboys who can't see reason or logic. Ok, Federer had fever that day, sure. That explains why he was beaten by his biggest rival who had pushed him all the way the year previous. I suppose you can't actually credit Nadal who made improvements to his game to do something that Fed never managed to do - beat his rival at his favourite GS? But of course, it is Wimbledons fault for changing court speeds, etc, etc.

mickmackey1

dominatinMC wrote: »

The simple facts (h2h records being one) is that the probability of Nadal or Djokovic beating Federer during this era (which isn't over yet) is higher than the converse happening.

The simple facts? Federer 86 hard court titles, Nadal 23. If that fact is not simple enough for you then you're beyond help.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

The simple facts? Federer 86 hard court titles, Nadal 23. If that fact is not simple enough for you then you're beyond help.

Nobody is arguing career stats....

H2H both at peak......10 matches....who wins....

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Nobody is arguing career stats....

H2H both at peak......10 matches....who wins....

I don't see why H2H is more important than career stats... surely H2H is just one ingredient but career stats is the full picture?

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

You still have not answered the question

Best of ten matches outdoor hard-court who wins between Nadal and RF and Nole and RF?

Is it clear to RF, or close to RF?

I personally cannot see it clear for RF or clear for Nadal and Nole.....

I would bet on Nole and Nadal, but just about.

I’d bet on near 50/50 scenarios across the board on hard court, peak v peak v peak. Nadal slight over Feder, Fed to have the advantage over Djokovic, and Novak to take Nadal as we have seen as their peaks aligned for a bit. Different players match up against other players differently.

Head to head is just one factor though. Novak struggled against Wawrinka in big matches at his peak, while Federer has owned Wawrinka. It’s silly to get bogged down in head to head.

Rob2D

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I wonder how many Federer fans would stake their life savings on peak Federer beating peak Novak or Nadal.

I would. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'm a fan of all these guys, but nothing comes close to 04/05 Rodger on a tennis court. If you really play the game, if you've ever gone out there on a court and tried to do what these guys do then you'd understand what he did. That man was just surreal.

And if this is a fantasy best of ten then let peak Fed have his new racket as well and it'd be goodnight Irene to whoever it is.

Chivito550

There’s no doubt the courts have been slowed down at Wimbledon over the years. Genuine question, how would people see Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fare on the 1990s grass against big serve and volley players like Sampras and Goran? I don’t think Federer would have won 8? But would have bagged a few (Court was faster in 03 when he won his first than later years) but I struggle to see how Nadal would win against those guys in that environment. Djokovic would likely be more of a threat and bag one like Agassi did.

That’s just my opinion though.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

There’s no doubt the courts have been slowed down at Wimbledon over the years. Genuine question, how would people see Federer, Nadal and Djokovic fare on the 1990s grass against big serve and volley players like Sampras and Goran? I don’t think Federer would have won 8? But would have bagged a few (Court was faster in 03 when he won his first than later years) but I struggle to see how Nadal would win against those guys in that environment. Djokovic would likely be more of a threat and bag one like Agassi did.

That’s just my opinion though.

That's another reason why this "GOAT" argument Federer fans always try to push is nonsense. Not only are different players better on different surfaces, different players are also better on courts at different speeds. On a slower to moderate court, I'd have Nadal beating Federer everyday, while Federer might shade Nadal on courts that are alot quicker, but by the same reckoning the quicker the court the bigger the advantage someone like Sampras has over Federer. So I don't really see what surface or speed Federer is the GOAT on. Nadal certainly wouldn't be the player he is today in the 90's, but I don't think he'd struggle as much as some people make out either. His shot making and passes from deep are the best I've ever seen

walshb

The strength and depth and overall improvement from the 90s to today and recently is staggering. I love the Edberg’s and Becker’s and Agassi’s and Sampras’s as much as the next guy, but Fed, Nole and Nadal on their day would be far too strong on any surface...they are on a different level..

Sampras generally seen as the best. But really, his ground strokes would not match up with the three greats. Not intense or strong enough off either wing, and that very weak BH would be brutalized...

Great serve, but he would need more than this..

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

I’d bet on near 50/50 scenarios across the board on hard court, peak v peak v peak. Nadal slight over Feder, Fed to have the advantage over Djokovic, and Novak to take Nadal as we have seen as their peaks aligned for a bit. Different players match up against other players differently.

Head to head is just one factor though. Novak struggled against Wawrinka in big matches at his peak, while Federer has owned Wawrinka. It’s silly to get bogged down in head to head.

You can't dismiss hth either though. If you simply can't beat someone, then you can't conclusively say you're better, regardless of what else you achieve against other players (taking into account a decent sample size of course)

As for Wawrinka, my take on it is that the stakes are much higher against Federer than Djokovic. He has no fear against Djokovic and regularly played him before Djokovic became the player he did. Against Federer, he has lived in a country where he is a near god like deity, who completely dominated the game while he was coming up through the ranks. The nerves and psychological barrier to overcome Federer would be much greater for Wawrinka I would imagine

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

You can't dismiss hth either though. If you simply can't beat someone, then you can't conclusively say you're better, regardless of what else you achieve against other players (taking into account a decent sample size of course)

As for Wawrinka, my take on it is that the stakes are much higher against Federer than Djokovic. He has no fear against Djokovic and regularly played him before Djokovic became the player he did. Against Federer, he has lived in a country where he is a near god like deity, who completely dominated the game while he was coming up through the ranks. The nerves and psychological barrier to overcome Federer would be much greater for Wawrinka I would imagine

Eh Wawrinka played Djokovic in 3 consecutive Australian Open 5 setters from 2013-2015, winning one, played a US Open 5 setter during that time, and beat him in 2015 RG to deny Novak the grand slam and again at US Open 2016, winning both those finals pretty convincingly.

Before Djokovic became the player he is? Come on now.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

The strength and depth and overall improvement from the 90s to today and recently is staggering. I love the Edberg’s and Becker’s and Agassi’s and Sampras’s as much as the next guy, but Fed, Nole and Nadal on their day would be far too strong on any surface...they are on a different level..

Sampras generally seen as the best. But really, his ground strokes would not match up with the three greats. Not intense or strong enough off either wing, and that very weak BH would be brutalized...

Great serve, but he would need more than this..

Standard improves in every sport due to external factors, talent doesn't. If Sampras grew up in today's era and the courts were quicker, I don't see any reason why he couldn't dominate in a similar fashion on hardcourts and grass

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Standard improves in every sport due to external factors, talent doesn't. If Sampras grew up in today's era and the courts were quicker, I don't see any reason why he couldn't dominate in a similar fashion on hardcourts and grass

Sampras won just 2 titles in Australia. Explain that.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Eh Wawrinka played Djokovic in 3 consecutive Australian Open 5 setters from 2013-2015, winning one, played a US Open 5 setter during that time, and beat him in 2015 RG to deny Novak the grand slam and again at US Open 2016, winning both those finals pretty convincingly.

Before Djokovic became the player he is? Come on now.

I never said he didn't. I gave suggestions as to why this was the case if you read my post properly. I assume he is not constraint by the same psychological barriers to overcoming Djokovic as he would be to Federer, particularly due to the fact he was used to playing Djokovic when Novk played at a lesser level

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Sampras won just 2 titles in Australia. Explain that.

OK. Well Federer is just the bestest bestest ever then and any suggestion anyone might do well against Federer on any court or speed in any era is wrong.

I dunno, he played against other good players maybe?

The Golden Miller

Claygreen wrote: »

In that case is Davydenko better than Nadal or Brown or whoever else that has a winning record against him?

In the last couple years Nadal is losing 5-0 head to head against a mid thirties Federer.

Did you miss the part when I said once you take into account a decent sample size. You're right though, Davydenko beating Nadal coming off the end of a lay-off is pretty conclusive stuff. I wouldn't give peak Nadal any chance against Davydenko in a grandslam final on hardcourt. How silly of me to even suggest it.

Who said Nadal was any good of late either? He's benefited just as much as Federer has due to the drop off in standard at the top. Nadal is quite a way off to being the player he was

ballyargus

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Did you miss the part when I said once you take into account a decent sample size. You're right though, Davydenko beating Nadal coming off the end of a lay-off is pretty conclusive stuff. I wouldn't give peak Nadal any chance against Davydenko in a grandslam final on hardcourt. How silly of me to even suggest it.

Who said Nadal was any good of late either? He's benefited just as much as Federer has due to the drop off in standard at the top. Nadal is quite a way off to being the player he was

He trails 6-1 on hardcourts to Davydenko. Including finals, over a relatively lengthy timespan.

ballyargus

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ah would ye come off it, the last 3 meetings on hardcourts were off the back of injuries where Nadal clearly wasn't fully fit and struggling with his knees. Sure he had to pull out of the Aus Open after one of the meetings and two victories came after a long lay off. A 4th win for Davydenko was a retirement. It seems more like fortuitous timing that Davydenko played Nadal when he did, rather than him being a bad match up for Nadal

I think if you run around like a rabbit on hardcourts you are asking for trouble.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ah would ye come off it, the last 3 meetings on hardcourts were off the back of injuries where Nadal clearly wasn't fully fit and struggling with his knees. Sure he had to pull out of the Aus Open after one of the meetings and two victories came after a long lay off. A 4th win for Davydenko was a retirement. It seems more like fortuitous timing that Davydenko played Nadal when he did, rather than him being a bad match up for Nadal

It’s ok to make excuses for Nadal but not for Federer. Good to know.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

It’s ok to make excuses for Nadal but not for Federer. Good to know.

Funny, two off those Davydenko wins came off the back of Nadals layoff that allowed Federer to win the French and Wimbledon. But I guess it was nothing serious like Glandular fever that we're only told about after the fact funnily enough.

Nadal regularly suffers with injuries, it's not an excuse, just the way it is. Federer has stayed relatively fit. Believe me, I'm not a Nadal fanboy who will make excuses for his defeats as I could not care less if he loses. Infact, in 2011, Novak bested him because he was just better. Imagine you admitted someone beat Federer because they were just better!

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Funny, two off those Davydenko wins came off the back of Nadals layoff that allowed Federer to win the French and Wimbledon. But I guess it was nothing serious like Glandular fever that we're only told about after the fact funnily enough.

Nadal regularly suffers with injuries, it's not an excuse, just the way it is. Federer has stayed relatively fit. Believe me, I'm not a Nadal fanboy who will make excuses for his defeats as I could not care less if he loses. Infact, in 2011, Novak bested him because he was just better. Imagine you admitted someone beat Federer because they were just better!

Nadal IS better.....on clay.

Away from clay it’s 19-6. How can anybody sane argue against this?