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

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Possibly..

The guy is on an incredible amount of slams when you think about it. He has not been around as long as RF, competed in a fair few less slams yet he's on 16...couple this year and couple next year?

He's looking ominous at RG for the forseeable future alright... then again the guys will be looking at what happened during the AO and thinking he might break down again, esp if he keeps up his mad schedule.

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Nadal is the GOAT on clay, nobody disputes that so using his wins on argue thst he is best overall is silly.

I never said he was the best overall.

RF is the GOAT!

I said on their strongest day on a hard court over 5 sets I would lean with Nadal to get the win...Over ten matches I would say 7-3 or 6-4 Nadal..

I have come to this conclusion after researching and watching almost all their matches through the years.

No argument if others pick Fed. It is quite close.

Adamocovic

Would I be correct in the only two tennis players to win grand slams after turning 35 are Roger Federer and Ken Rosewell, and both have won 3?

Very few tennis players win a grand slam after they turn 30 (Nadal and Federer both have accomplished this). Still can't get over the late surge for Federer though. I think it probably does more for his claim to being the best. Nadal has his chance to, if he adapts and starts winning the fact that he overcome the injury problems will help his case too.

Would love to see Federer to break the record for oldest ever slam winner. Something he will have to wait until next year for.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

I said on their strongest day on a hard court over 5 sets I would lean with Nadal to get the win...Over ten matches I would say 7-3 or 6-4 Nadal..

I think you're basing that on the belief that Nadal had the upper hand in the mentality stakes, and you may be right.... but if we could turn the clock back and give Federer his current mentality, the situation could be very different. I mean Nadal can hardly take a set off him these days.

ballyargus

walshb wrote: »

No argument

This thread has been great. Words like that have no place in it.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I think you're basing that on the belief that Nadal had the upper hand in the mentality stakes, and you may be right.... but if we could turn the clock back and give Federer his current mentality, the situation could be very different. I mean Nadal can hardly take a set off him these days.

I agree.

Many of those big matches resulted in Fed having a UE count that killed him. It wasn't necessarily that Nadal was tennis superior, he was not (for me the most talented and skilled player ever is RF) it was to do with a host of things, and RF breaking down and making UEs at a high rate was one thing.

I am sure that when you scroll through the stats you will see the winner counts being mostly RF. The real scruff by the neck wow points are much more RF. The real flare and beautiful winners being ,mostly RF, but we all know a 5 setter is to do with so many other things.....

So, credit to Nadal for likely making RF doubt himself and commit the UEs. The opponent has to factor into this.

For raw skilled and beautiful and crisp tennis nobody is better than RF.

mickmackey1

Adamocovic wrote: »

Would I be correct in the only two tennis players to win grand slams after turning 35 are Roger Federer and Ken Rosewell, and both have won 3?

That's right, in the open era anyway. Arthur Gore won Wimby in 1909 aged 41! But the AO's that Rosewall won were just glorified Aussie Nationals really, no comparison to the present tournament.

walshb wrote: »

I agree.

Many of those big matches resulted in Fed having a UE count that killed him. It wasn't necessarily that Nadal was tennis superior, he was not (for me the most talented and skilled player ever is RF) it was to do with a host of things, and RF breaking down and making UEs at a high rate was one thing.

I am sure that when you scroll through the stats you will see the winner counts being mostly RF. The real scruff by the neck wow points are much more RF. The real flare and beautiful winners being ,mostly RF, but we all know a 5 setter is to do with so many other things.....

So, credit to Nadal for likely making RF doubt himself and commit the UEs. The opponent has to factor into this.

For raw skilled and beautiful and crisp tennis nobody is better than RF.

It's almost as if Federer was shocked that somebody could actually compete against him, his talents and win % was so high that the mental side of the game was not really necessary for him. I think he lost a couple of close matches against Djokovic for the same reason... superior ability but lesser belief.

mickmackey1

mickmackey1 wrote: »

That's right, in the open era anyway. Arthur Gore won Wimby in 1909 aged 41! But the AO's that Rosewall won were just glorified Aussie Nationals really, no comparison to the present tournament.


It's almost as if Federer was shocked that somebody could actually compete against him, his talents and win % was so high that the mental side of the game was not really necessary for him. I think he lost a couple of close matches against Djokovic for the same reason... superior ability but lesser belief.

he's probably almost as shocked that he's won 3 slams in the last 12 months.

I wonder if Nadal can adapt his game - it's so much based around physicality and doggedness that it's a much bigger challenge for him than Federer and the way that he has changed things up. Nadal is a superbly skilled player but that's not what wins him matches. The doggedness and mental strength only work with the accompanying physicality and if the physicality is progressively declining (it has already but if it continues or accelerates more rapidly) it's hard to see him adding to his total beyond maybe a FO or 2.

dominatinMC

glasso wrote: »

he's probably almost as shocked that he's won 3 slams in the last 12 months.

I wonder if Nadal can adapt his game - it's so much based around physicality and doggedness that it's a much bigger challenge for him than Federer and the way that he has changed things up. Nadal is a superbly skilled player but that's not what wins him matches. The doggedness and mental strength only work with the accompanying physicality and if the physicality is progressively declining (it has already but if it continues or accelerates more rapidly) it's hard to see him adding to his total beyond maybe a FO or 2.

I think he already adapting his game tbh. A bit like Federer, his forehand is not as lethal as it once was, but he has started to address and improve the obvious weaknesses in his game. His serve is much improved, and his backhand has never been better, it used to be a defensive shot but now it is flatter and more offensive. Nadal will never be as graceful a mover Fed, so will still rely on physicality, but I think he is trying to shorten points to prolong his longevity. Djokovic is also in the process of this, clearly the first port of call is the serve, which he has altered dramatically to reduce stress on his elbow. It will be interesting to see how their changes work out for them.

dominatinMC

dominatinMC wrote: »

I think he already adapting his game tbh. A bit like Federer, his forehand is not as lethal as it once was, but he has started to address and improve the obvious weaknesses in his game. His serve is much improved, and his backhand has never been better, it used to be a defensive shot but now it is flatter and more offensive. Nadal will never be as graceful a mover Fed, so will still rely on physicality, but I think he is trying to shorten points to prolong his longevity. Djokovic is also in the process of this, clearly the first port of call is the serve, which he has altered dramatically to reduce stress on his elbow. It will be interesting to see how their changes work out for them.

true he has sought to shorten the points.

to be honest Nadal should skip Wimbledon in the way that Fed skips the French Open (assume he will do so this year also). Nadal has no chance of winning Wimbledon anymore imo. His results at SW19 have been worse in the last 6 years than Fed's at the French Open.

mickmackey1

Ahh the artistry, style, elegance...

In the interest of balance I suppose we should have a video summing up what Nadal will long be remembered for...

The Golden Miller

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

What age do you actually think tennis players peak?
The evidence is clear that peak tennis years for men is 23-25.

And why does that have to apply to every tennis player? Federer is the GOAT, so surely he transcends averages as he is not average?

You state the reason he continually lost to Nadal after 08 is because he diminished as a player. So why was he regularly losing to a teenage Nadal on hardcourts before he diminished? Also, just because a player is no longer at their peak, does not mean they won't put in peak performances after their peak, just less regularly. So can you accept that after 08 Federer hit peak levels at times, or close to it, and was just beaten by Nadal straight up because Nadal was the better player?

Also, I'm very interested to hear the views of Federer fans on the GOAT credentials of his peak years, but thus far have not got a response. How are his "peak" years GOAT material if it cannot be measured or tested against a worthy opponent? Weak opposition is a stick Federer fans use to diminish Borg's GOAT credentials pre-McEnroe.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

he continually lost to Nadal after 08

That one statement sums up the fact that you're not interested in a genuine debate. The score is 8-8 on hardcourts since '08. The fact that Fed was over 30 in thirteen of these matches puts the final nail in Nadal's coffin.

The reason I'd rule out Borg as GOAT is because he never won the USO.

Chivito550

Told my physio at my appointment about this thread about the arguments of GOAT.

His response: It’s not even a contest. It’s obviously Federer.

See, we all can find little anecdotes to add to the thread.

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And why does that have to apply to every tennis player? Federer is the GOAT, so surely he transcends averages as he is not average?

You state the reason he continually lost to Nadal after 08 is because he diminished as a player. So why was he regularly losing to a teenage Nadal on hardcourts before he diminished? Also, just because a player is no longer at their peak, does not mean they won't put in peak performances after their peak, just less regularly. So can you accept that after 08 Federer hit peak levels at times, or close to it, and was just beaten by Nadal straight up because Nadal was the better player?

Also, I'm very interested to hear the views of Federer fans on the GOAT credentials of his peak years, but thus far have not got a response. How are his "peak" years GOAT material if it cannot be measured or tested against a worthy opponent? Weak opposition is a stick Federer fans use to diminish Borg's GOAT credentials pre-McEnroe.

Federer lost to Nadal only twice away from clay before 2008. That’s hardly regularly getting beaten on hard court now is it!

walshb

The Bolt analogy is nonsense. His “decline” is measuresble via the clock..

You don’t have that luxury here with Fed..

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

It's not nonsense, it's an objective example of how male athletes are declining by their mid twenties.

In Fed’s case it is nonsense. It’s not comparable..

Bolt can be measured and verified...

Fed cannot be accurately measured year to year. Win/loss only tells part of the story..

Personally I think there are plenty examples of 2008 onwards Fed that would have matched/bested pre 2008 Fed..

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

In Fed’s case it is nonsense. It’s not comparable..

Bolt can be measured and verified...

Fed cannot be accurately measured year to year. Win/loss only tells part of the story..

Personally I think there are plenty examples of 2008 onwards Fed that would have matched/bested pre 2008 Fed..

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

Adamocovic

Nadal and Federer are both outstanding players worthy of the debate for greatest of all time.

And naturally since it is so close between them and they both have completely different styles so the opinions are split 50/50. Don't see why people get annoyed if other people disagree with them and have to analyse every game, over different periods of their careers and every court type to change the other persons opinion. Likely thing is we are all fans of one of them and are not going to change our minds about it.

Both haven't finished their careers yet either. Federer is have his late revival, which is shocking but only boosting opinions of him, while Nadal got back to winning ways last season. As I said for me Federer is the greatest, but if someone rates Nadal higher so be it.

As for Novak, he had such a poor year last year. I'm not sure if I see him returning to form this year, and if that's the case I'm not even sure he'll ever reach the peaks he had during his domination. So many things have gone wrong for him and recently heard his elbow is still at him and is contemplating surgery.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

That one statement sums up the fact that you're not interested in a genuine debate. The score is 8-8 on hardcourts since '08. The fact that Fed was over 30 in thirteen of these matches puts the final nail in Nadal's coffin.

The reason I'd rule out Borg as GOAT is because he never won the USO.

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 didn't have 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

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?