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

WickIow Brave

Adamocovic wrote: »

Agree. The fact that Federer is still going and winning slams at this point after his period of slipping away is only testament that he has shown he can adapt his game.

Neither him or Nadal have any questions to answer. I would say Djokovic too, who was unstoppable during a period, but I feel how he comes back now may decide how highly people rank him.

Yeah. I've spent this whole thread arguing Nadal and Djokovic at their peak beats Fed at his peak while still maintaining Fed is the GOAT.

Federer has come back and owned Nadal and that counts for a lot. And while I believe Nadal is a shadow of the player he was, Fed is still 5 years older so that's not much of an excuse.

There's still a few twists in the tale yet I feel. Nadal is a strong fav for #17 at RG now, likewise #21 for Fed at Wimbledon. When will Fed start declining for good? How long can Nadal stay #1 and challenge for slams, when will he stop dominating on clay, can Nole come back and win slams again?

ballyargus

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah. I've spent this whole thread arguing Nadal and Djokovic at their peak beats Fed at his peak while still maintaining Fed is the GOAT.

Federer has come back and owned Nadal and that counts for a lot. And while I believe Nadal is a shadow of the player he was, Fed is still 5 years older so that's not much of an excuse.

There's still a few twists in the tale yet I feel. Nadal is a strong fav for #17 at RG now, likewise #21 for Fed at Wimbledon. When will Fed start declining for good? How long can Nadal stay #1 and challenge for slams, when will he stop dominating on clay, can Nole come back and win slams again?

vetinari

Personally I'd have peak Federer beating both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic.
I'd base this on the fact it took Nadal and Djokovic at their absolute peak to start beating a post prime Federer regularly.

I don't discount Nadal's clay wins but as other posters have mentioned it's easy to keep your head to head record up if you don't get far enough in the other slams to face the top players. Nadal by right should have faced Federer a similar number of times on hard courts and grass as Federer has faced him on clay. You have to knock something off Nadal for early Grand Slam exits when he was at his peak.

WickIow Brave

ballyargus wrote: »

Lol. So true.

Adamocovic

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah. I've spent this whole thread arguing Nadal and Djokovic at their peak beats Fed at his peak while still maintaining Fed is the GOAT.

Federer has come back and owned Nadal and that counts for a lot. And while I believe Nadal is a shadow of the player he was, Fed is still 5 years older so that's not much of an excuse.

There's still a few twists in the tale yet I feel. Nadal is a strong fav for #17 at RG now, likewise #21 for Fed at Wimbledon. When will Fed start declining for good? How long can Nadal stay #1 and challenge for slams, when will he stop dominating on clay, can Nole come back and win slams again?

While Nadal isn't as unbeatable as he once was, he still (for now) is world number 1 and won 2 slams last year. For me how Nadal has been able to overcome injury problems, and how Federer has been able to adapt to ageing, to still win and be ranked highly they both have proven themselves. As you said now we'll see what Novak can do. Was great but I feel how he reacts now will decide how most choose to view his legacy.

WickIow Brave

Adamocovic wrote: »

While Nadal isn't as unbeatable as he once was, he still (for now) is world number 1 and won 2 slams last year. For me how Nadal has been able to overcome injury problems, and how Federer has been able to adapt to ageing, to still win and be ranked highly they both have proven themselves. As you said now we'll see what Novak can do. Was great but I feel how he reacts now will decide how most choose to view his legacy.

Yeah, unbelievable from both. I remember when Nadal pulled out of French Open in 2016, I thought he was finished especially after how poorly he played in 2015. Would never have believed he'd come and win a French Open never mind a US Open. Not to mention his come back in 2013 before that. And 2010 aswell tbf after 2009. Likewise Fed recovering from a serious decline in 2013 and again an injury in 2016. I'd fear for Djokovic now tbh, I'd struggle to see him win another slam but never say never when he's involved. He's the man to do it if anyone can.

WickIow Brave

vetinari wrote: »

Personally I'd have peak Federer beating both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic.
I'd base this on the fact to took Nadal and Djokovic at their absolute peak to start beating a post prime Federer regularly.

I don't discount Nadal's clay wins but as other posters have mentioned it's easy to keep your head to head record up if you don't get far enough in the other slams to face the top players. Nadal by right should have faced Federer a similar number of times on hard courts and grass as Federer has faced him on clay. You have to knock something off Nadal for early Grand Slam exits when he was at his peak.

What about Djokovic? I don't think Federer could beat a peak Djokovic. You'd need to invent a cyborg to do that imho.

walshb

vetinari wrote: »

Personally I'd have peak Federer beating both peak Nadal and peak Djokovic.
I'd base this on the fact to took Nadal and Djokovic at their absolute peak to start beating a post prime Federer regularly.
.

This is completely inaccurate.

It did not take Nadal to be at his absolute peak to beat Federer regularly...

He has always led the H2H from 2004 onwards, when he himself was not at his peak.

It might be a little more accurate to say it of Nole. But Nole has beaten Fed through the years 2007 - 2016. He lost his first 4 or so, but that was when Nole was aged 19 or so. He got his first win aged 20 and from then he was matching Fed in H2H, when Fed was closer to his prime according to many.

Could one not say that it took Fed at his peak to get consistent results over Nadal and Nole, when they were not at their peak?

Fed the GOAT

Nole and Nadal on their strongest day more than up to Fed's strongest day.

walshb

WickIow Brave wrote: »

What about Djokovic? I don't think Federer could beat a peak Djokovic. You'd need to invent a cyborg to do that imho.

He did beat him at RG in 2011 in an epic match. Fed playing as good as he has ever played on clay....

Wait for the Fed brigade.....yes, he beat him when he was past his best...

That 2011 RG Federer played out of his skin in that semi.

The Golden Miller

Adamocovic wrote: »

I think we're going to disagree overall on this. I don't see how you can see he's never adapted. He's beaten Nadal in great matches in the past and has shown he can adapt.

From 2008-2014 Nadal had a 15-4 record against Federer.
From 2015-2018 Federer holds a 5-0 record. 4 of those wins came last year.

This is on the back of him adapting his game. Does that not show the adaptive abilities to beat opponents you have mentioned? Even Rafa's uncle/trainer Toni has been praising Feds ability to adapt his game.

I agree with most of what you say here. They have all proven themselves at different points in their career and in different ways. I'm not overly concerned how any of their legacies will be viewed if truth be told, I just think some Federer fans need to relax with their hyperbole and excuse making. No one is making excuses for the shortcomings of Nadal or Djokovic at certain points in their careers

Fibrestring

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Yet Ali could adapt his style to overcome his opponent, despite being past his peak. Surely one of the hallmarks of greatness. Federer couldn't .

Regarding legacy issues, Federer will be regarded as the GOAT but will always have question marks looming over this universal acclaim. Nadal, while he may not be remembered quite as often or in such high esteem, has nothing left to answer, he proved everything there is to prove on the court. Federer's greatness relies on a general consensus, that the guy beside you will also excuse/forget him being bested by Nadal and call him the GOAT, as Federer never really answered this question on the court itself.

Well he did adapt his game then, he is 5:0 against Nadal in the last 18 months.

The Golden Miller

If I had to cast doubt on one particular weakness in Federers armour though, that always plays on my mind when I think of his greatness, it would be his psychological toughness. Of course he has beaten guys like Roddick and whoever in tight matches and on big occasions, but I feel when someone of equal strength can live with him he rattles a bit too easily for my liking. He had the beating of Nadal on clay quite a few times.

I've just always noticed that under sustained pressure, their seems to be quite alot of uncharacteristic unforced errors. If we are comparing him to guys in the past, I'd fear for him against someone like Borg. Federer is technically a better player naturally, but psychologically I'd feel a player like Borg who could live with him would get in his head like Nadal and do quite a number on him.

Its hard to compare across generations so there is no way of really knowing. But the cream will always float to the top regardless of the generation, so your always going to be splitting hairs seeing as different courts and speeds suit different players, and of course the change away from wooden racquets. For career legacies Borg and Federer would be my two GOATs if I had to pick, despite both having unanswered questions in certain areas. Federer for elegance, longitivgy and honours, Borg for greater dominance and success over all types of court compared to the ratio of tournaments he played in, particularly slams. And for peaks, Djokovic and McEnroe

vetinari

walshb wrote: »

This is completely inaccurate.

It did not take Nadal to be at his absolute peak to beat Federer regularly...

He has always led the H2H from 2004 onwards, when he himself was not at his peak.

As has been repeated multiple times, Nadal hasn't faced Federer as many times on grass and hardcourts as a player of his ability should have. It distorts H2H if say Nadal gets knocked out before the semi finals and thus Federer ends up not playing him. You're essentially knocking Federer for being more consistent on clay than Nadal was on hard courts and grass

WickIow Brave

vetinari wrote: »

As has been repeated multiple times, Nadal hasn't faced Federer as many times on grass and hardcourts as a player of his ability should have. It distorts H2H if say Nadal gets knocked out before the semi finals and thus Federer ends up not playing him. You're essentially knocking Federer for being more consistent on clay than Nadal was on hard courts and grass

In the same way you're knocking Nadal for Fed not being capable of reaching the Wimbledon and US Open finals in 2010 and 2011 and USO QF in 2013. No way Federer would have won in any of those 5 matches. 3 HC and 2 grass. When they did meet in that period, AO 2012 and 2014 SFs, Nadal was a comprehensive winner.

vetinari

Up to 2011, Nadal's record matched his stature, he was runner up at Wimbledon and the US open and got to the quarters of the Australian Open.

If you consider that Nadal and Federer are pretty much always in the top 4 seeds, they both need to get to the semi finals for the chance to exist that they play each other.

Since then Nadal has reached 5 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG.
Federer has reached 13 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG

That's a spell from when Nadal was 26 to 32. Nadal by rights should at least have another 5 semi final appearances in that spell.

average_runner

vetinari wrote: »

Up to 2011, Nadal's record matched his stature, he was runner up at Wimbledon and the US open and got to the quarters of the Australian Open.

If you consider that Nadal and Federer are pretty much always in the top 4 seeds, they both need to get to the semi finals for the chance to exist that they play each other.

Since then Nadal has reached 5 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG.
Federer has reached 13 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG

That's a spell from when Nadal was 26 to 32. Nadal by rights should at least have another 5 semi final appearances in that spell.

I would of loved to see the three guys in tennis when it was at its peak in 90's and early 00's

mickmackey1

average_runner wrote: »

I would of loved to see the three guys in tennis when it was at its peak in 90's and early 00's

When Pioline, Washington and Verkerk were getting to Slam finals? That's silly stuff.

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

I would of loved to see the three guys in tennis when it was at its peak in 90's and early 00's

They without doubt would have ruled...

The Golden Miller

vetinari wrote: »

Up to 2011, Nadal's record matched his stature, he was runner up at Wimbledon and the US open and got to the quarters of the Australian Open.

If you consider that Nadal and Federer are pretty much always in the top 4 seeds, they both need to get to the semi finals for the chance to exist that they play each other.

Since then Nadal has reached 5 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG.
Federer has reached 13 / 19 Grand Slam semi finals excluding RG

That's a spell from when Nadal was 26 to 32. Nadal by rights should at least have another 5 semi final appearances in that spell.

Your whole point is that the hth is skewed because they met more on clay, and Nadal failed to live up to his side of the bargain on hardcourts, because if he did the hth would be closer with more Federer victories on hardcourt, right?

Except Federer being more consistent in tournaments has little bearing on whether he would beat Nadal one on one. Before 08, a 'peak' Federer shades a teenage Nadal on hardcourts in hth, often just about falling over the line. After this point Nadal routinely bested him, their hth 7-3 to Nadal on hardcourts, 3-0 in slams between 08-14. The form would suggest the hth would be wider if they met more, not closer. How can it be argued the hth would be closer, if Federer kept failing to beat Nadal more often than not when he did get the chance to play him on hardcourts?

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

They without doubt would have ruled...

Not so sure on that. Wimbledon was a different type of surface.

Agassi had the game to handle them. Sampras had a serve and volley that none had faced.

Slower balls back then also

walshb

average_runner wrote: »

Not so sure on that. Wimbledon was a different type of surface.

Agassi had the game to handle them. Sampras had a serve and volley that none had faced.

Slower balls back then also

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three, I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three. I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

Ye the courts aren't as drastically different, I think that tends to be an excuse pushed by Sampras fans originally. But I don't think the gap between Agassi, Sampras and the current 3 is all that huge either. The current 3 are better I would say, but Sampras and Agassi would get their fair share of wins.

Federer and Sampras met and it was a 5 setter. Sampras was probably not quite the player he once was, although closer to his peak than Federer and still slam winning material. But he was beginning to have alot of off days by this period. Federer would be better, but there would be alot of 5 set matches with Sampras winning some, particularly if his serve was on form and he was aggressive. As Roddick showed in the Wimbeldon final in 08, there's sometimes little you can do against a great serve. Same with Agassi, an ageing Agassi could take sets off a "peak" Federer. You'd have to assume a younger Agassi would be closer again, and take his fair share of wins.

I think the standout guys in most generations will always reach the top regardless of the generation. For example, Sampras' ground strokes could hold their own with the best when it was called for, although he preferred picking up quick cheap points. Serve and volley was the game at the time so he grew up perfecting that. If he grew up in today's baseline era, I don't see how his groundstrokes and conditioning wouldn't be alot better if that was the requirement for him to work at growing up. But this is the problem comparing era's.

average_runner

walshb wrote: »

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three. I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

Wimbledon courts are now drier than ever. They are a slower surface. If you listen to Becker and McEnroe talk about it. It's no longer a serve and volley surface. Fed has said this himself.


I agree on the era's point. Sampras game was about quick and sharp.

Fed is probably the only player that has changed his game with the times and kept at the top. But would he be there now if we had a fully fit Nadal and Novak back to his mental best?

It's hard to know.

Tomero

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

Christ indeed! Where on earth do you find the time to forensically examine the political and ideological leanings of every single person you admire in the sports world or any other world?!? Even in your own world?
Because I assume you do in order to ensure that you can be seen to be condemning anyone who doesn’t tick all the boxes?
You must be exhausted?
Tell us, what does Roger Federer think about the situation in Myanmar?
How does Rafael Nadal feel about transgender rights, you must know, right?

What the hell are you even talking about? I assume most people are good people until I have reason to believe otherwise. Sandragen's distasteful tweets came to my attention as other retweeted/blogged about them. Very little time was needed to "forensically examine" this, given the rolling news feed nature of social media sites, stuff from years ago can literally be found in seconds. Are you aware of how the internet works?

Not exhausted either, on the contrary you're the one who seems to be getting a bit excited about it all. Have no idea what Federer thinks about the situation in Myanmar or how Nadal feels about transgender rights, nor do I understand it's relevance to this conversation, but I guess if you want to find out you could maybe Google it?

Christy42 wrote: »

It seems weird that of all the reasons why people take a dislike to different players that a player coming across as homophobic is seen as the worst reason.

I wouldn't say it's the worst, it's just that people on here were defending him and trying to explain it away when it was probably among the least defensible things he'd said.

Seomra50 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with not liking gay clubs. Personally I find the sight of two men kissing disgusting, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are all allowed are personal tastes. What's ironic is that you condemn someone for feelings that they can't help, which is very similar to someone condemning someone for being attracted to the same sex, feelings they can't help. So I view your reasoning similar to those who are intolerant of gay people.

Not even gonna touch this, just gonna wait for you to be banned again :pac:

Translation: You are a hypocrite and you realise it is undeniable due to my superior reasoning so you try to side step the issue with no one noticing.

Condemning people for finding something disgusting is basically the same as condemning someone for being gay. In both instances the subject has no control over the feelings or sexual orientation. In another time you would be condemning gay people when it was fashionable to do so, because you are a lemming, group think runs your mind.

Back to the tennis, it seems it was a step too far for Edmund, hopeful he learns from this and comes back stronger.

mickmackey1

The dangerous Khachanov beaten in Rotterdam so the stars appear to be aligning for Fed... just 3 more little wins and we can close this thread for good

Rikand

Fed #1 and goat

PlaneSpeeking

Rikand wrote: »

Fed #1 and goat

Never anything more accurately said! Best player ever.

The Golden Miller

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Never anything more accurately said! Best player ever.

What's your metric for GOAT?

PlaneSpeeking

The Golden Miller wrote: »

What's your metric for GOAT?

I'm a tennis fan of 40 years, not a statistician.

The Golden Miller

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a tennis fan of 40 years, not a statistician.

Then how are subjective opinions "accurate"? "Accuracy" is an extrapolation of some sort of tangible measurement