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

Fibrestring

walshb wrote: »

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?

Watch his matches in 2005/06, notice his incredible speed around the court, his ferocity and explosiveness, the precision as well. Then watch his matches in 2008, he's just not the same.

Fibrestring

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

Roddick was a good player, but Federer had his number in his peak. So Federer's loss in 2008 indicates his form had dipped significantly. Then in the 2009 Wimbledon final Roddick deserved to win that match, he threw it away.

Adamocovic

Even as a Federer I'd say Nadal bested him in many of the matchups, and any Federer fan who doesn't believe there were times where Nadal was simply the better player, without making excuses for Federer, are just being delusional.

Think it's silly when people get caught up on the head-to-head stat and start taking away the clay clashes. Why disregard a surface just because Nadal was dominant on it? Federer was dominant on indoor hard courts but nobody takes that away from the head-to-head clashes in Nadals favour. But for me head-to-head isn't the be all and end all. Novak has won the head-to-head against both Nadal and Federer but I wouldn't rate him greater overall than either of them.

People do bring in the 5 year difference, which I normally can understand in tennis, but for me Federer is an anomaly. He doesn't need to rely on the physical side of the game as much leading to him being able to maintain playing at a very high level. Very intelligent tennis.

For Nadal to adapt to prolong his career it will be more difficult. I think his style of play has already taken it's toll on his body, and I cannot see him still winning slams into 35+ the same way as Federer. If he proves me wrong then maybe he'll change my opinion on who I rate the greatest.

Adamocovic

And less of the bashing of Roddick.

He was a very good player. Was just unfortunate that he hit his heights the same time as Federer who dominated their matchups. His record versus Federer was 3-21, was runner-up to him so many times. 4 Slams too

Think there was an interview before where he joked that should want to trip Federer up in the locker room, but he couldn't hate Federer because he was such a nice guy.

walshb

Fibrestring wrote: »

Watch his matches in 2005/06, notice his incredible speed around the court, his ferocity and explosiveness, the precision as well. Then watch his matches in 2008, he's just not the same.

I have watched them....there is so much more to tennis than one or two metrics..

You know, experience and mental strength and adapting are all very important. But, very difficult to measure and show.

Speed in 2005 and 2006 compared to 2008....ok, what speed , or what speed difference.....Watching a match here and there from different years cannot paint the whole picture....

Explosiveness.....again, how can you really show these explosiveness differences between 2005 and 2006 compared to 2008 and beyond?

Precision.....again,. how can this be shown and compared favorably to say that in 2005 and 2006 his precision was superior...

Just saying it and saying "watch" the matches means little....

For me RFs career peak never had an absolute peak year or month or week. He has been at peak for the guts of 15 years, of course, with dips in form through these years...It's why he is the GOAT!

Fibrestring

walshb wrote: »

I have watched them....there is so much more to tennis than one or two metrics..

You know, experience and mental strength and adapting are all very important. But, very difficult to measure and show.

Speed in 2005 and 2006 compared to 2008....ok, what speed , or what speed difference.....Watching a match here and there from different years cannot paint the whole picture....

Explosiveness.....again, how can you really show these explosiveness differences between 2005 and 2006 compared to 2008 and beyond?

Precision.....again,. how can this be shown and compared favorably to say that in 2005 and 2006 his precision was superior...

Just saying it and saying "watch" the matches means little....

For me RFs career peak never had an absolute peak year or month or week. He has been at peak for the guts of 15 years, of course, with dips in form through these years...It's why he is the GOAT!

How do any of us recognise talent quality of play, we watch it.

Usain Bolt won for most of his career, but he was obviously past peak even though he was still winning. Likewise Ali was past peak when he beat Foreman and Frazier. He peaked in the sixties.

walshb

Fibrestring wrote: »

How do any of us recognise talent quality of play, we watch it.

Usain Bolt won for mist of his career, but he was onviously past peak even though he was still winning. Likewise Ali was past peak when he beat Foreman and Frazier. He peaked in the sixties.

Ali's peak is a mix of the 60s and 70s...

It's all to do with metrics....

Ali was more fleet footed in the 60s, but that bit more strong and tougher in the 70s....

In other words, sometimes what you lose in one area you gain in another...

I have always been of the opinion that the 60s Ali would have had a tougher time with the 70s Foreman. The 70s Ali had that confidence, aura, strength, utter belief, tougher chin and body....

Likewise with Frazier. The mid 60s Ali was not as physically strong as the 70s Ali. He would have needed that strength to really compete with Frazier. Sure, his feet were faster, but he still would need that physical body strength.

So, when you look at everything you can add and subtract things here and there. Fed may have been slightly faster on his feet in 2004 - 2007, but I think he was a more shrewd and complete player past these years. More experience, guile and patience..more used to the big occasion.

Sports like swimming and running you simply measure with the clock.

Sports like tennis and boxing are far more complex and far more difficult to assesses regards when the competitors are at their best.

Too Tough To Die

Adamocovic wrote: »

Even as a Federer I'd say Nadal bested him in many of the matchups, and any Federer fan who doesn't believe there were times where Nadal was simply the better player, without making excuses for Federer, are just being delusional.

Think it's silly when people get caught up on the head-to-head stat and start taking away the clay clashes. Why disregard a surface just because Nadal was dominant on it? Federer was dominant on indoor hard courts but nobody takes that away from the head-to-head clashes in Nadals favour. But for me head-to-head isn't the be all and end all. Novak has won the head-to-head against both Nadal and Federer but I wouldn't rate him greater overall than either of them.

People do bring in the 5 year difference, which I normally can understand in tennis, but for me Federer is an anomaly. He doesn't need to rely on the physical side of the game as much leading to him being able to maintain playing at a very high level. Very intelligent tennis.

For Nadal to adapt to prolong his career it will be more difficult. I think his style of play has already taken it's toll on his body, and I cannot see him still winning slams into 35+ the same way as Federer. If he proves me wrong then maybe he'll change my opinion on who I rate the greatest.

I think it's worth mentioning here that Nadal is 9-4 up in GS meetings against Djokovic. 4-3 in GS finals.

Adamocovic

Too Tough To Die wrote: »

I think it's worth mentioning here that Nadal is 9-4 up in GS meetings against Djokovic. 4-3 in GS finals.

Ha but that point was covered in my post. Like Federer fans who subtract the clay wins for Nadal to make Federer the overall winner in head-to-head, you can subtract the other tournaments that Nadal and Djokovic have played in to make Nadal the winner.

It's easy to pick and choose statistics to make a case for each player but as I've said before, for me when it comes to deciding who is the greatest of all time it's the entire body of work, not isolated periods.

The Golden Miller

Fibrestring wrote: »

How do any of us recognise talent quality of play, we watch it.

Usain Bolt won for most of his career, but he was obviously past peak even though he was still winning. Likewise Ali was past peak when he beat Foreman and Frazier. He peaked in the sixties.

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.

ballyargus

Let's not get derailed here but George Foreman was stitched up big time. That match stank to high heaven.

walshb

ballyargus wrote: »

Let's not get derailed here but George Foreman was stitched up big time. That match stank to high heaven.

What part of it?

I agree that he was stitched up. Those piercing jabs and straight rights and 1-2s he was eating all night, culminating in a heavy KO shots to drop him for the count....serious stitching!

Adamocovic

The Golden Miller wrote: »

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.

Nadal not be remembered as often? In years to come when you think of Federer you will think of Nadal, and vice versa. Their rivalry was/is one of the best we have seen in tennis. It's impossible now to think of one and not automatically think of the other.

Of course Nadal will be viewed by some as the greatest to play the sport. As for the final part not sure how you can claim Nadal has proven everything he has had to on the court while Federer has not? But I'm open to understanding why you feel this way.

From your post it sounds like Nadal has wiped the floor with Federer, which is not true at all, they've had some of the best matchups in the history of the sport, and continue to do so. In my eyes Federer has more than proven himself. It's easy to point at his success but for me the fact that he's been able to consistently perform with the best and when it appeared he was going to fade out was able to adapt his game in order to prolong his career, and now at 36 is still winning grand slams.

Can I ask why you think he hasn't proven himself? Is it due to his overall head to head matchup with Nadal or something else?

Chivito550

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.

Nadal has nothing to prove? His slam count is so overwhelmingly dominated by RG. He’s only won one Australian Open. Hes never won the ATP Finals. He’s done nothing at Wimbledon since 2011. How on earth does he have nothing left to prove? You really do sound like a closet “fanboy” to quote yourself.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal has nothing to prove? His slam count is so overwhelmingly dominated by RG. He’s only won one Australian Open. Hes never won the ATP Finals. He’s done nothing at Wimbledon since 2011. How on earth does he have nothing left to prove? You really do sound like a closet “fanboy” to quote yourself.

Ah come on now? I don't think Nadal or Federer have anything left to prove. Nadal has 'only won one Australian Open'? Federer has 'only won one French Open'. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons (been in 5 finals), 3 US Opens, made 4 Australian Open finals narrowly losing 2 and got injured against Stan. He's also won the Greatest match in tennis history against the GOAT in the Wimbledon final so I don't think you can question him off clay. Also won Olympic Gold in singles and doubles on hardcourt. I don't understand how Federer has anything left to prove?

dominatinMC

Adamocovic wrote: »

Nadal not be remembered as often? In years to come when you think of Federer you will think of Nadal, and vice versa. Their rivalry was/is one of the best we have seen in tennis. It's impossible now to think of one and not automatically think of the other.

Completely agree, and I honestly think this is another sore point for the Federer fanboy brigade. That their all-conquering, all-domineering, demigod of tennis will forever be intrinsically associated with Nadal. And with that brings the discussion of Nadal being dominant over Federer, which must kill them. As you say, their rivalry has transcended tennis, so much so, that whenever causal sports fans think of tennis, they think of these two (and Djokovic too, to an extent).

Chivito550

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Ah come on now? I don't think Nadal or Federer have anything left to prove. Nadal has 'only won one Australian Open'? Federer has 'only won one French Open'. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons (been in 5 finals), 3 US Opens, made 4 Australian Open finals narrowly losing 2 and got injured against Stan. He's also won the Greatest match in tennis history against the GOAT in the Wimbledon final so I don't think you can question him off clay. Also won Olympic Gold in singles and doubles on hardcourt. I don't understand how Federer has anything left to prove?

I don’t think either have anything left to prove. I just think your comment was moronic suggesting that Nadal has nothing to prove but Federer has question marks.

dominatinMC

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Ah come on now? I don't think Nadal or Federer have anything left to prove. Nadal has 'only won one Australian Open'? Federer has 'only won one French Open'. Nadal has 2 Wimbledons (been in 5 finals), 3 US Opens, made 4 Australian Open finals narrowly losing 2 and got injured against Stan. He's also won the Greatest match in tennis history against the GOAT in the Wimbledon final so I don't think you can question him off clay. Also won Olympic Gold in singles and doubles on hardcourt. I don't understand how Federer has anything left to prove?

Neither of them have anything left to prove, Federer is the GOAT, Nadal is the 2nd GOAT (imo). Anyone that argues that these guys have something left to prove (after all they have given us as tennis fans), needs their head examined! :pac:

WickIow Brave

dominatinMC wrote: »

Completely agree, and I honestly think this is another sore point for the Federer fanboy brigade. That their all-conquering, all-domineering, demigod of tennis will forever be intrinsically associated with Nadal. And with that brings the discussion of Nadal being dominant over Federer, which must kill them. As you say, their rivalry has transcended tennis, so much so, that whenever causal sports fans think of tennis, they think of these two (and Djokovic too, to an extent).

Yeah spot on. mick mackey said 'In 50 years people will only remember Federer as the GOAT'. I think people will remember the 2008 Wimbledon Final as a huge moment in tennis history. That match was insane and transcended the sport more than any individual achievements. Federer's 20 slams, Nadal's 10 slams, Djokovic winning all 4 slams consecutively. All great achievements. But great moments are probably remembered more and the 2008 Wimbledon final was massive. The good thing for Federer fans is the winner won't even be remembered. It will just be remembered as the Nadal Federer final.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

I don’t think either have anything left to prove. I just think your comment was moronic suggesting that Nadal has nothing to prove but Federer has question marks.

What?! Where did I say Federer has anything left to prove?!

Chivito550

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah spot on. mick mackey said 'In 50 years people will only remember Federer as the GOAT'. I think people will remember the 2008 Wimbledon Final as a huge moment in tennis history. That match was insane and transcended the sport more than any individual achievements. Federer's 20 slams, Nadal's 10 slams, Djokovic winning all 4 slams consecutively. All great achievements. But great moments are probably remembered more and the 2008 Wimbledon final was massive. The good thing for Federer fans is the winner won't even be remembered. It will just be remembered as the Nadal Federer final.

IMO the actual quality of tennis in the AO 2009 final was far greater. But it lacked a dramatic final set and Federer faded badly. But the first 4 sets of that final is the best quality I’ve ever seen.

As for drama and atmosphere, I actually think Goran v Rafter was even greater than 2008. We will never see an event like it again, unless we get another 3rd Monday final (unlikely now with the roof).

But you are right about the event transcending the sport. Just like Borg v McEnroe did.

dominatinMC

WickIow Brave wrote: »

Yeah spot on. mick mackey said 'In 50 years people will only remember Federer as the GOAT'. I think people will remember the 2008 Wimbledon Final as a huge moment in tennis history. That match was insane and transcended the sport more than any individual achievements. Federer's 20 slams, Nadal's 10 slams, Djokovic winning all 4 slams consecutively. All great achievements. But great moments are probably remembered more and the 2008 Wimbledon final was massive. The good thing for Federer fans is the winner won't even be remembered. It will just be remembered as the Nadal Federer final.

Absolutely, a seminal moment not just in tennis history, but sports in general. I still remember all my family and friends watching that match on a Sunday evening/night when, for all the previous Wimbledon matches that year, it was just me alone in my living room watching!

The Golden Miller

Adamocovic wrote: »

Nadal not be remembered as often? In years to come when you think of Federer you will think of Nadal, and vice versa. Their rivalry was/is one of the best we have seen in tennis. It's impossible now to think of one and not automatically think of the other.

Of course Nadal will be viewed by some as the greatest to play the sport. As for the final part not sure how you can claim Nadal has proven everything he has had to on the court while Federer has not? But I'm open to understanding why you feel this way.

From your post it sounds like Nadal has wiped the floor with Federer, which is not true at all, they've had some of the best matchups in the history of the sport, and continue to do so. In my eyes Federer has more than proven himself. It's easy to point at his success but for me the fact that he's been able to consistently perform with the best and when it appeared he was going to fade out was able to adapt his game in order to prolong his career, and now at 36 is still winning grand slams.

Can I ask why you think he hasn't proven himself? Is it due to his overall head to head matchup with Nadal or something else?

I believe Nadal will most oftenly be remembered in the context of Federer, but his greatness will be discussed independently of Federer at points too. I don't believe Federer's greatness can be discussed independently of Nadal in the same way.

Nadal has no questions left to answer in the sense he was a clay court specialist, who adapted to all surfaces and won all before him, hit a wall with Djokovic, adapted his game and came back and reached the top once more. There is no question asked of him that he could not answer, and he proved all there is to prove out on the court. This is during an era when nearly every slam he entered he faced competition from Djokovic, Murray and Federer. Now before Federer fans jump down my throat, I am not making a case for him being the GOAT, he's not, simply he has nothing left to prove as there are no questions hanging over his legacy. But this is not about Nadal.

If Federer fans are to be believe, Federer isn't just an all time great, he is THE all time great, a level above the rest. Whether you or I believe he has nothing left to prove isn't all that relevant, as there are so many that do, and that question will always be Nadal. The GOAT was unable to adapt and get the measure of Nadal, he never answered that question in any meaningful way on the court. And like Borg's legacy is questioned with McEnroe, Federer's career will be defined for many people by the questions he was often unable to answer out on the court against Nadal. That is why we have so many insecure militant Federer fanboys excusing and explaining the Nadal question away, they are trying to beat Nadal on forums because Federer often couldn't beat him on the courts where it counted.

Borg and Federer's career will be as much defined for the moments they were usurped on the grass of sw19, as it will be for anything else. McEnroe and Nadal, although their greatness not as much discussed nor GOATS, will be remembered on their own merits as they beat all before them, Borg and Federer didn't.
When we talk about legacy's, this is what I believe the general consensus will remember

WickIow Brave

dominatinMC wrote: »

Absolutely, a seminal moment not just in tennis history, but sports in general. I still remember all my family and friends watching that match on a Sunday evening/night when, for all the previous Wimbledon matches that year, it was just me alone in my living room watching!

Yep. With the rain delays and everything. I can remember the whole day as clear as anything. My brother who has zero interest in any sport had to go out and he was asking me to text him updates lol.

Adamocovic

dominatinMC wrote: »

Absolutely, a seminal moment not just in tennis history, but sports in general. I still remember all my family and friends watching that match on a Sunday evening/night when, for all the previous Wimbledon matches that year, it was just me alone in my living room watching!

Me and my dad played out our, what had become usual during that period, routine. Him sitting on the couch cheering on Nadal and me in another corner of the room cheering on Federer. Occasionally I think we would just try to annoy each other and make passing remarks about the other player.

I'll never forget the game, the mother was an innocent bystander, and despite watching one of the greatest games of all time I was deflated by the end. Didn't help with my dad gloating.

It's gas really, back in their supposed peaks we were firmly on different sides of the divide and wouldn't have a nice thing to say about the other player. Now, probably due to the period where Djokovic dominated we both seem genuinely happy to see either Nadal or Federer do well. It hit home to me more when my dad had texted me during the Federer game hoping he'd win, it used to be the case I'd hope Nadal loses, or he would hope Federer loses during a non Nadal/Federer game because we "would want the underdog to win" haha!

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

As for drama and atmosphere, I actually think Goran v Rafter was even greater than 2008. We will never see an event like it again, unless we get another 3rd Monday final (unlikely now with the roof).

.

My personal favorite ever SW19 final..

The Golden Miller

Adamocovic wrote: »

Me and my dad played out our, what had become usual during that period, routine. Him sitting on the couch cheering on Nadal and me in another corner of the room cheering on Federer. Occasionally I think we would just try to annoy each other and make passing remarks about the other player.

I'll never forget the game, the mother was an innocent bystander, and despite watching one of the greatest games of all time I was deflated by the end. Didn't help with my dad gloating.

It's gas really, back in their supposed peaks we were firmly on different sides of the divide and wouldn't have a nice thing to say about the other player. Now, probably due to the period where Djokovic dominated we both seem genuinely happy to see either Nadal or Federer do well. It hit home to me more when my dad had texted me during the Federer game hoping he'd win, it used to be the case I'd hope Nadal loses, or he would hope Federer loses during a non Nadal/Federer game because we "would want the underdog to win" haha!

Alot of people often rooted for Federer on clay, I know I often did, would of made things alot more interesting had the FO not always been a forgone conclusion

WickIow Brave

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I believe Nadal will most oftenly be remembered in the context of Federer, but his greatness will be discussed independently of Federer at points too. I don't believe Federer's greatness can be discussed independently of Nadal in the same way.

Nadal has no questions left to answer in the sense he was a clay court specialist, who adapted to all surfaces and won all before him, hit a wall with Djokovic, adapted his game and came back and reached the top once more. There is no question asked of him that he could not answer, and he proved all there is to prove out on the court. This is during an era when nearly every slam he entered he faced competition from Djokovic, Murray and Federer. Now before Federer fans jump down my throat, I am not making a case for him being the GOAT, he's not, simply he has nothing left to prove as there are no questions hanging over is legacy. But this is not about Nadal.

If Federer fans are to be believe, Federer isn't just an all time great, he is THE all time great, a level above the rest. Whether you or I believe he has nothing left to prove isn't all that relevant, as there are so many that do, and that question will always be Nadal. The GOAT was unable to adapt and get the measure of Nadal, he never answered that question in any meaningful way on the court. And like Borg's legacy is questioned with McEnroe, Federer's career will be defined for many people by the questions he was often unable to answer out on the court against Nadal. That is why he have so many insecure militant Federer fanboys excusing and explaining the Nadal question away, they are trying to beat Nadal on forums because Federer often couldn't beat him on the courts where it counted.

Borg and Federer's career will be as much defined for the moments they were usurped on the grass of sw19, as it will be for anything else. McEnroe and Nadal, although their greatness not as much discussed nor GOATS, will be remembered on their own merits as they beat all before them, Borg and Federer didn't.
When we talk about legacy's, this is what I believe the general consensus will remember

I understand what you're saying but tbf Federer came back and beat Nadal in the 2017 AO Final. I don't believe Federer, Nadal or Djokovic for that matter will have any questions to answer over their legacies.

Adamocovic

The Golden Miller wrote: »

If Federer fans are to be believe, Federer isn't just an all time great, he is THE all time great, a level above the rest. Whether you or I believe he has nothing left to prove isn't all that relevant, as there are so many that do, and that question will always be Nadal. The GOAT was unable to adapt and get the measure of Nadal, he never answered that question in any meaningful way on the court. And like Borg's legacy is questioned with McEnroe, Federer's career will be defined for many people by the questions he was often unable to answer out on the court against Nadal. That is why he have so many insecure militant Federer fanboys excusing and explaining the Nadal question away, they are trying to beat Nadal on forums because Federer often couldn't beat him on the courts where it counted.

Borg and Federer's career will be as much be defined for the moment the were usurped on the grass of sw19, as it will be for anything else. McEnroe and Nadal, although their greatness not as much discussed nor GOATS, will be remembered on their own merits as they beat all before them, Borg and Federer didn't.
When we talk about legacy's, this is what the general consensus will rememeber

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.

Adamocovic

WickIow Brave wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but tbf Federer came back and beat Nadal in the 2017 AO Final. I don't believe Federer, Nadal or Djokovic for that matter will have any questions to answer over their legacies.

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.

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