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

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

What about service speed, groundstroke speed, accuracy, court coverage?? They can all be measured.

Ok, away you go with your in-depth study...

I’d like to see the results that definitively prove that RF 2008 onwards was less the player compared to pre 2008.

Little teaser..his fastest ever serve was recorded in 2010..

Adamocovic

Sorry if posted before but Nadals uncle/trainer Toni had some quotes regarding Federer's win in Australia:

“When Roger Federer understood that he had to evolve the concepts of his game, he did and waited,”
“I believe that his tennis is more relentless today, although the points also seem less colourful to me as the epic longer and more disputed exchanges get lost along the way.

He also wrote: “Only a character subjected precisely to something as irrational as excessive passion and obsession for what one does is able to withstand what such a long and fruitful career involves.”

Each victory of Federer complicates things more for my nephew but, if the injuries steer clear, I hope I won’t see him abandon the fight mentally or the accept things as they are,” Toni wrote in an article for Spanish newspaper El Pais.

“Today, as Roger has moved away a little more from him, I share with many people the great value of this man and the magnitude of his achievements, but also today more than ever Rafael should want to fight to overcome his current setback and find the necessary conviction in his own passion.”

Hopefully we will get another year of installments to this rivalry. I know Novak was insanely good/successful and beat both Nadal and Federer, but despite this I've never ranked him at their level personally.

The Golden Miller

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Usain Bolt is far from average, but guess what, he is a human being and subject the laws of biology like everyone else. He peaked at 22/23, it was downhill from there. For Federer it was downhill at about 24/25. For Nadal it was about 24 and for Dkokovic it was 24.

Federer could only play the players in front of him, and I think you are under estimating players such as Agassi (yes post peak I know), Safin, Ferrerro, Gonzalez, Nalbandian, Ferrer, Davydenko, Mario Ancic, Gustavo Kuerten (one of best clay courters of all time), peak Hewitt and peak Roddick.

Nadal is one of the all time greats also, of course he could beat Federer. Federer is a better all round player. Federer is an all time great on hard court indoors, fast hardcourt outdoors, slow hardcourt and also clay. Nadal is relatively weak on fast indoor courts. The homogenisation of courts by slowing them down benefitted Nadal and Djokovic hugely, which suits their game. There aren't enough fast hard courts.

Even Wimbledon is much slower than in the past, by the time the final comes around it almost plays like clay. That's why Nadal still has an outside chance to win Wimbledon if he can squeek past the early rounds when the grass is slick and low bouncing.

The whole point of an average is that many people punch well above that average, while many fall below it, and the average is the accumulated medium. Therefore how can you argue there is not case to be made that the GOAT's peak lasted well beyond that average?

I'm not underestimating those players. All era's have solid players. The point is there was no one on Federer's level to truly test himself against, so how can his peak be GOAT material, particularly when Federer fans regularly use Borg's lack of competition to dismiss him with?

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So Borg is ruled out as a GOAT because he didn't win a slam when slam counting wasn't a measurement of greatness? Another inconsistency. Going by what Borg won, multiple US Open finals, Wimbeldon and FO's, we could argue he's a far more proficient player of the game of tennis, all surfaces on the whole, whereas Federer can really only claim to be the hardcourt GOAT. But really, Federer fans dismiss Borg due to a lack in competition.

Now you say I'm not interested in honest debate, but it's you who keeps dancing around questions I'm putting to you. How do Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility, when he had no true worthy opponent to measure himself against? And even if he was past his peak, how can you argue he had peak performances after 08, even if they were less common? So do you concede that after 08, Federer at times played close to peak level but lost to Nadal on many occasions because Nadal was simply better?

Can you actually address these points instead of selecting one line from my posts to sidestep the issues I've raised

Get real, you know perfectly well the USO was 1 of the 2 biggest tournaments in the world and any GOAT candidate had to win it. Whether it was called a slam or not is completely beside the point.

And it's hilarious to questions Fed's opposition when Nadal came up against the poorest clay court generation in living memory. In the 90s he would have faced against Agassi, Moya, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera etc etc. who would have tested him properly. But no doubt you're going to brush that under the carpet with some more spoofing.

ballyargus

I said it last night folks. It's reflexes and decision making. Happens at 24 folks. Here are sauces:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/brains-reaction-time-peaks-age-24-study-finds

http://time.com/63500/brain-aging-at-24/

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Ok, away you go with your in-depth study...

I’d like to see the results that definitively prove that RF 2008 onwards was less the player compared to pre 2008.

Very poor, defensive post. You're on the ropes now and the ref is thinking of stepping in...

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Get real, you know perfectly well the USO was 1 of the 2 biggest tournaments in the world and any GOAT candidate had to win it. Whether it was called a slam or not is completely beside the point.

And it's hilarious to questions Fed's opposition when Nadal came up against the poorest clay court generation in living memory. In the 90s he would have faced against Agassi, Moya, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera etc etc. who would have tested him properly. But no doubt you're going to brush that under the carpet with some more spoofing.

Again, I do not care of Nadal is the clay GOAT or not. I am not pushing the GOAT argument on anything.

So slam and specific tournament counting was a measurement of greatness in the Borg era then, despite you saying earlier it wasn't a major factor? Regardless, Borg has averaged more tournament wins than Federer over all surfaces, so surely he's the GOAT as Federer can only claim to be a better hardcourt player?

Again I will specifically ask for an answer on these two questions: 1. How do Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility when he never had a worthy rival to measure himself against? Seeing as Federer still had peak performances after 08, albeit less common apparently, do you accept that when he lost to Nadal he often just lost because Nadal was the better player? You have repeatedly failed to address these two points, and are now childishly using Nadal whataboutery

mickmackey1

Adamocovic wrote: »

And naturally since it is so close between them and they both have completely different styles so the opinions are split 50/50.

Nah it's more like 95-5 in the real world, don't be influenced by a few hapless cases on here.

Adamocovic

It's actually quite interesting. I seem to have a different opinion when looking at who I rate as the greatest of all time.

Yes various players have periods that you could chalk down to greatest domination periods of the sport (Djokovic 2015, Nadal 2010, Federer 2007 etc) but for me that is only a factor of it. People always bring up players peaks, but I think it's much more than that.

A player can have a brilliant period or peak and then fade off, for me that lowers my opinion of their overall career. Yeah they were one of the best but for me the greatest is someone who of course has tremendous talent, and a period of domination of the sport but also continues to consistently compete.

Chivito550

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Get real, you know perfectly well the USO was 1 of the 2 biggest tournaments in the world and any GOAT candidate had to win it. Whether it was called a slam or not is completely beside the point.

And it's hilarious to questions Fed's opposition when Nadal came up against the poorest clay court generation in living memory. In the 90s he would have faced against Agassi, Moya, Kuerten, Courier, Bruguera etc etc. who would have tested him properly. But no doubt you're going to brush that under the carpet with some more spoofing.

Excellent point. In the 90s, when I was growing up watching tennis, Roland Garros was famous for having the so called dirt rats. Lads who were hopeless elsewhere, showing up on clay and beating the living sh1t out of the guys who dominated for 9 months of the year. I used to love it. It made RG quite special. Guys like Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Moya, Mantilla, Muster, Corretja, Bruguera. Guys who would do f*ck all elsewhere. Where have all these clay specialists gone? Nowadays, the quarter finals of the French look no different to the quarter finals of the other slams.

Chivito550

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Very poor, defensive post. You're on the ropes now and the ref is thinking of stepping in...

Loving the boxing analogy, given the poster in question.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Again, I do not care of Nadal is the clay GOAT or not. I am not pushing the GOAT argument on anything.

So slam and specific tournament counting was a measurement of greatness in the Borg era then, despite you saying earlier it wasn't a major factor? Regardless, Borg has averaged more tournament wins than Federer over all surfaces, so surely he's the GOAT as Federer can only claim to be a better hardcourt player?

Again I will specifically ask for an answer on these two questions: 1. How do Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility when he never had a worthy rival to measure himself against? Seeing as Federer still had peak performances after 08, albeit less common apparently, do you accept that when he lost to Nadal he often just lost because Nadal was the better player? You have repeatedly failed to address these two points, and are now childishly using Nadal whataboutery

I personally think Borg was an ATG, repeating the Channel Slam year after year was epic. Just a pity he couldn't get the USO, therefore ruling him out.

And I will accept that Nadal was better by winning some matches against Federer when you accept Davydenko was better by winning more matches against Nadal.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

Excellent point. In the 90s, when I was growing up watching tennis, Roland Garros was famous for having the so called dirt rats. Lads who were hopeless elsewhere, showing up on clay and beating the living sh1t out of the guys who dominated for 9 months of the year. I used to love it. It made RG quite special. Guys like Kuerten, Gaudio, Coria, Moya, Mantilla, Muster, Corretja, Bruguera. Guys who would do f*ck all elsewhere. Where have all these clay specialists gone? Nowadays, the quarter finals of the French look no different to the quarter finals of the other slams.

No one is arguing here whether Nadal is the clay GOAT, and no one was coming onto the forum to champion him as the clay GOAT as Federer fans persistently do with their deity. How can Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility when he had no worthy opponent to measure himself against? In your own words, his opposition were journeymen

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I personally think Borg was an ATG, repeating the Channel Slam year after year was epic. Just a pity he couldn't get the USO, therefore ruling him out.

And I will accept that Nadal was better by winning some matches against Federer when you accept Davydenko was better by winning more matches against Nadal.

Davydenko beat Nadal because he was the better man. Your turn

And once again, you have failed to address any of my points

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No one is arguing here whether Nadal is the clay GOAT, and no one was coming onto the forum to champion him as the clay GOAT as Federer fans have with their deity. How can Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility when he had no worthy opponent to measure himself against? In your own words, his opposition were journeymen

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said his opposition were journeymen. I said some of the guys he lost to in 2008 were journeymen. Admittedly I included Roddick in that list which I should not have done. That was an oversight. The other guys he lost to in 2008 were journeymen. Roddick wasn't.

Safin, Hewitt, Roddick etc were not journeymen.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

No one is arguing here whether Nadal is the clay GOAT, and no one was coming onto the forum to champion him as the clay GOAT as Federer fans have with their deity. How can Federer's peak years have GOAT credibility when he had no worthy opponent to measure himself against? In your own words, his opposition were journeymen

In that case can you give us a GOAT candidate who did have worthy opposition? Just so we can understand what you're driving at...

For Nadal I think that he's affected more by ball-bounce height than court speed per se for the way he likes to hit the ball with his swing set-up.

e.g. the Australian open is a slower surface than the US open but the ball bounces lower on the Australian surface due to the nature of the compound make up.
Same issue for him at Wimbledon.
He has won the US open 3 times (including 2017) but the AO only once.

http://nationalpost.com/sports/tennis/the-history-defining-characteristics-and-masters-of-grand-slam-tennis-court-surfaces

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

In that case can you give us a GOAT candidate who did have worthy opposition? Just so we can understand what you're driving at...

You said when I admit that Nadal was beaten by the better man, you would admit that Federer was beaten by Nadal simply because Nadal had been better. Now you are cowardly moving the goalposts and backtracking for the whole forum to see.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

You are putting words into my mouth. I never said his opposition were journeymen. I said some of the guys he lost to in 2008 were journeymen. Admittedly I included Roddick in that list which I should not have done. That was an oversight. The other guys he lost to in 2008 were journeymen. Roddick wasn't.

Safin, Hewitt, Roddick etc were not journeymen.

Convenient. Roddick is a journeyman when it helps to emphasise how low Federer had fallen in 08, but all of a sudden Roddick is great because it helps to emphasise how great the standard was in Fed's "peak years". More goalpost changing. Well beyond embarrassing at this stage

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

You said when I admit that Nadal was beaten by the better man, you would admit that Federer was beaten by Nadal simply because Nadal had been better. Now you are cowardly moving the goalposts and backtracking for the whole forum to see.

So where did I say that Nadal won by being worse? You're being a bit silly now.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

And I will accept that Nadal was better by winning some matches against Federer when you accept Davydenko was better by winning more matches against Nadal.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Davydenko beat Nadal because he was better man.

Still waiting

Adamocovic

What sort of debate is going on here? haha

Nadal and Federer exchanged some classic match-ups. Obviously the player who won each time did so being the best on the day. Don't see the debate there and all the inclusions of Andy Roddick ( who admittedly was one of my favorite players, back when I'd root for him against Federer)

The Golden Miller

Adamocovic wrote: »

What sort of debate is going on here? haha

Nadal and Federer exchanged some classic match-ups. Obviously the player who won each time did so being the best on the day. Don't see the debate there and all the inclusions of Andy Roddick ( who admittedly was one of my favorite players, back when I'd root for him against Federer)

Certain posters on this site have yet to once admit that Nadal beat Federer simply because he was better. Always a mitigating factor

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Certain posters on this site have yet to once admit that Nadal beat Federer simply because he was better. Always a mitigating factor

:D:D hmmm let me see now.... Nadal was better than Federer

at picking his ****

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

:D:D hmmm let me see now.... Nadal was better than Federer

at picking his ****

It's utterly pathetic that you can't even bring yourself to type the words that Nadal beat Federer because Nadal was better, even after you said you would. "Past his peak", "glandular fever" etc etc. You literally can't even, not once, accept or write that Nadal beat Federer at any point in their career simply because Nadal was better......"but but but" Absolutely pathetic. Think I'm done on this forum now

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Convenient. Roddick is a journeyman when it helps to emphasise how low Federer had fallen in 08, but all of a sudden Roddick is great because it helps to emphasise how great the standard was in Fed's "peak years". More goalpost changing. Well beyond embarrassing at this stage

Not at all. Roddick was a top player, but Federer had his number and beat him handy. In 2009 he struggled badly and should have lost but for Roddick blowing it. That missed volley to go 2 sets up was a howler. He let Federer off the hook that day.

mickmackey1

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Nadal was better than Federer at picking his arse

he must wear a thong or something and it gets caught in his crack or else a gypsy witch cursed him to an eternal wedgie.

dominatinMC

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Certain posters on this site have yet to once admit that Nadal beat Federer simply because he was better. Always a mitigating factor

I don't mean to sound critical, but why keep responding? You are feeding a (deluded) troll. At this point I'm just following this thread to get a bit of a laugh out of mickmackeys responses, they are so predictable it's almost cliched. Most of the responses are the kind you would get from a child, who hasn't the capacity to fully understand the concepts of reason, logic, and rationale.

I say, just let him be at ease, in his utopian, idyllic world, where Federer rules all.

The Golden Miller

dominatinMC wrote: »

I don't mean to sound critical, but why keep responding? You are feeding a (deluded) troll. At this point I'm just following this thread to get a bit of a laugh out of mickmackeys responses, they are so predictable it's almost cliched. Most of the responses are the kind you would get from a child, who hasn't the capacity to fully understand the concepts of reason, logic, and rationale.

I say, just let him be at ease, in his utopian, idyllic world, where Federer rules all.

Query: Is a troll someone who genuinely believes what they type? Good advice though. I must say, this had me in stitches, it's worth reposting

dominatinMC wrote: »

If nothing else, this thread has shown me the almost manic, rabid nature of the Federer fanboy subculture, and the depths to which they will go to defend any slight criticism of their messiah. There have been some very good, reasoned, and valid points in this debate, and it's clear we will never be unanimous in our agreement of peaks/matchups/GOATS (although I'd like to think that most posters believe Fed to be the GOAT - the actual debate was that Nadal & Djokovic have bested him throughout his career). The fanboy element, which seems to be spearheaded here by mickmackey1, have a case of tunnel-vision which I didn't believe could exist. Cannot deal with simple facts, cannot deal with logic and reason, cannot engage in a debate, will do anything to defend their man, it really is cult-like. After all, what are we debating here, the probability of the outcome of a tennis match between complete strangers?! Where is the vehement loyalty and fidelity coming from?? Did Roger make ye take an oath?! :rolleyes: I just cannot understand how one can argue so blindly in the face of facts. I suppose that is what constitutes a fanboy.

I think this thread has probably run it's course now, and I am happy in the knowledge that there are reasonable tennis fans on boards.ie who can accept that Federer is not perfect and has some defects as a tennis player, and was beaten (quite badly in some instances) by better players on given particular days. A mere mortal after all. In a way, I feel sorry for the Fed fanboys who feel the constant need to defend their man, and comfort themselves with hypothetical scenarios such as "if Fed had a bigger racquet, if Nadal had not got beaten all those times in the early rounds". IF may only have two letters, but it is a big word. IF I had picked two different lotto numbers last week, I would be a millionaire, but I didn't, and I'm not. Maybe these fanboys would feel better if this thread wasn't started, then they might be at rest safe in the knowledge that everyone else thinks as they do, but now they know that is not the case. As they say, ignorance is bliss.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Very poor, defensive post. You're on the ropes now and the ref is thinking of stepping in...

Yeh yeh..

Now, how you getting on with all these measurements that will show us that 2008 and beyond Fed was less a tennis player than pre 2008 Fed?