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

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

But peak level will simply not be remembered. In 50 years the only fact that matters will be Fed 20, Nadal 16, Djoker 12. Everything else is fluff.

Everything else is not fluff and slams being the only thing that will be remembered is a myth. For example everyone remembers McEnroe usurped Borg despite having less slams, and anytime Borgs greatness is discussed McEnroe is the first thing mentioned. Just as it will be for Federer, Nadals name will be thrown in the minute Federers greatness is discussed, whether that is now or in 50 years.

And unfortunately for Federer fans, peak levels will also be remembered if a player sustained it over a decent period of time e.g a young McEnroe

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

And 'World No 1' Nadal would have continued to dominate had he not been beaten 5 times in a row by a certain 35 year old...

Great attempt refuting the points made

ballyargus

walshb wrote: »

Stopped being dominant does not have to mean you are less the player...

It certainly does. Why is there a consistent pattern of tennis players not being as all conquering beyond 26, not just this era - but any recent?#

I'd hazard a guess that a lot of it comes down to reflexes. These start to slow at around 24 and the impact won't be visible for a year or two. Doesn't mean they become **** it just means that they lose shades in a very important aspect of the game, not just physically but mentally too when it comes to shot selection and a lot else.

There's little to choose between top level athletes in any sport and it comes down to small percentages. Losing in this area could account for the general trend I mentioned earlier

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Everything else is not fluff and slams being the only thing that will be remembered is a myth. For example everyone remembers McEnroe usurped Borg despite having less slams, and anytime Borgs greatness is discussed McEnroe is the first thing mentioned. Just as it will be for Federer, Nadals name will be thrown in the minute Federers greatness is discussed, whether that is now or in 50 years.

And unfortunately for Federer fans, peak levels will also be remembered if a player sustained it over a decent period of time e.g a young McEnroe

Not an accurate comparison because it's only in the last 25 years that Slams have become the benchmark for greatness. McEnroe and Borg didn't bother with the AO, and even the French was downplayed. So there was room for other factors to be considered in the greatness debate.

If Nadal is talked about in 50 years it will be in the context of having 4 less slams than the greatest ever.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Not an accurate comparison because it's only in the last 25 years that Slams have become the benchmark for greatness. McEnroe and Borg didn't bother with the AO, and even the French was downplayed. So there was room for other factors to be considered in the greatness debate.

If Nadal is talked about in 50 years it will be in the context of having 4 less slams than the greatest ever.

So how can you claim Federer is the GOAT when you accept someone like Borg didn't care for how many slams he had? Had he the benefit of hindsight maybe he would of pushed on for more? You therefore can't judge someone like Borg by todays standards of greatness, while simultaneously call Federer the GOAT over guys like Borg based on slam numbers. Again, wanting it everyway. The reality is, everytime Federers greatness will be mentioned, the first response will always be Nadal. Whether that is now or in 50 years

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

So how can you claim Federer is the GOAT when you accept someone like Borg didn't care for how many slams he had? Had he the benefit of hindsight maybe he would of pushed on for more? You therefore can't judge someone like Borg by todays standards of greatness, while simultaneously call Federer the GOAT over guys like Borg based on slam numbers. Again, wanting it everyway. The reality is, everytime Federers greatness will be mentioned, the first response will always be Nadal. Whether that is now or in 50 years

Seriously? You've been arguing that Nadal's peak level was higher but now you're admitting that we can't compare players who peaked at different times. So according to you Borg, Mac and others may also have had a higher peak than Nadal. Kinda ruins your argument. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Seriously? You've been arguing that Nadal's peak level was higher but now you're admitting that we can't compare players who peaked at different times. So according to you Borg, Mac and others may also have had a higher peak than Nadal. Kinda ruins your argument. Can't have it both ways I'm afraid.

I don't believe Federer and Nadal peaked at different times. I believe Federer was still at his peak level for several years after 08 and was routinely bested by Nadal, and I've seen nothing to convince me on the contrary other than the say so of Federer fans. The minute Nadal was injured, he carried on winning slams as before.

And I never once said peak levels can't be compared, it's YOU who said guys of yesteryear were judged by a different criteria. So I'm querying how we can call Federer the GOAT based on slam numbers, if these guys are judged by a different criteria? If you believe Federer is better than Borg regardless of slam numbers then that is fine, but then don't claim slam numbers are the only thing that will be remembered.

And yes, I do put McEnroe's peak level above Nadal, and Federer's too for that matter. I'd have McEnroe and Djokovic's peak top of my list. Sorry to hurt your Federer feelings

Chivito550

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I don't believe Federer and Nadal peaked at different times. I believe Federer was still at his peak level for several years after 08 and was routinely bested by Nadal, and I've seen nothing to convince me on the contrary other than the say so of Federer fans. The minute Nadal was injured, he carried on winning slams as before.

And I never once said peak levels can't be compared, it's YOU who said guys of yesteryear were judged by a different criteria. So I'm querying how we can call Federer the GOAT based on slam numbers, if these guys are judged by a different criteria? If you believe Federer is better than Borg regardless of slam numbers then that is fine, but then don't claim slam numbers are the only thing that will be remembered.

And yes, I do put McEnroe's peak level above Nadal, and Federer's too for that matter. I'd have McEnroe and Djokovic's peak top of my list. Sorry to hurt your Federer feelings

He didn’t routinely keep winning slams. He struggled past Roddick 16-14 in the fifth, a guy he usually beat easily, and he lost to Delpo. Nothing routine about it.

You can be off your best and still better than the rest. Usain Bolt was far off his best in 2013 and still was good enough to win 100/200 world gold. He was even further from his best in Rio 2016 and still won both.

You can’t for a second entertain the idea that somebody who was once way better than the rest, could still, in a period of decline, be a little bit better than the rest. Just because he won slams doesn’t mean he was at his very best. He wasn’t. He was still an excellent player but his peak years were behind him, and the losses to many journeymen in 2008 highlight this.

mickmackey1

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I don't believe Federer and Nadal peaked at different times. I believe Federer was still at his peak level for several years after 08 and was routinely bested by Nadal, and I've seen nothing to convince me on the contrary other than the say so of Federer fans. The minute Nadal was injured, he carried on winning slams as before.

And I never once said peak levels can't be compared, it's YOU who said guys of yesteryear were judged by a different criteria. So I'm querying how we can call Federer the GOAT based on slam numbers, if these guys are judged by a different criteria? If you believe Federer is better than Borg regardless of slam numbers then that is fine, but then don't claim slam numbers are the only thing that will be remembered.

And yes, I do put McEnroe's peak level above Nadal, and Federer's too for that matter. I'd have McEnroe and Djokovic's peak top of my list. Sorry to hurt your Federer feelings

Your insistence that Fed was still peaking in '08 is nothing more than trolling. He was beaten by the likes of Stepanek, his % win rate dropped dramatically and even in the so-called great Wimby final he dumped so many forehands into the bottom of the net. It was only Nadal's inability on grass that took it to 9-7 in the fifth.

So if being wrongheaded keeps you happy, then so be it. But everyone else is laughing at you.

The Golden Miller

Chivito550 wrote: »

He didn’t routinely keep winning slams. He struggled past Roddick 16-14 in the fifth, a guy he usually beat easily, and he lost to Delpo. Nothing routine about it.

You can be off your best and still better than the rest. Usain Bolt was far off his best in 2013 and still was good enough to win 100/200 world gold. He was even further from his best in Rio 2016 and still won both.

You can’t for a second entertain the idea that somebody who was once way better than the rest, could still, in a period of decline, be a little bit better than the rest. Just because he won slams doesn’t mean he was at his very best. He wasn’t. He was still an excellent player but his peak years were behind him, and the losses to many journeymen in 2008 highlight this.

What do you mean he struggled past Roddick? It had as much to do with Roddick having an Indian summer and playing out of his skin as opposed to Federer diminishing as a player. Roddick also beat Murray, someone he usual lost to by that point. Federer routinely beat Roddick in their next few meetings too, as I'm sure you're aware. Roddick just played exceptionally well in that particular tournament. This is part of the problem for Federer fans, unable to give other players their due credit, there always has to be an excuse. Same with Del Potro, he just beat Nadal and Federer straight up, because on his day he's a brilliant and formidable player.

If we are to believe Federer did diminish as a player, then I struggle to see how his "peak" years have GOAT credential status at all, seeing as the only guys he beat, as you put it, were journeymen. No challenger on his level to measure his greatness against. The Rocky Marciano of tennis lets call him. And as for losing to journeymen in 08, ye he did, most of the losses coming after two slam defeats to Nadal on the bounce, and his confidence taking a pasting. As I said, part and parcel of the game for any sportsperson with actual competition, nothing about diminishing as a player

The Golden Miller

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Your insistence that Fed was still peaking in '08 is nothing more than trolling. He was beaten by the likes of Stepanek, his % win rate dropped dramatically and even in the so-called great Wimby final he dumped so many forehands into the bottom of the net. It was only Nadal's inability on grass that took it to 9-7 in the fifth.

So if being wrongheaded keeps you happy, then so be it. But everyone else is laughing at you.

Yes considering everyone else on here who has no preference for any of the 3 players, have all argued the exact opposite of what you are trying to say. And out of curiosity, seeing as you addressed nothing I said once again, what is your own criteria that would place "peak" Federer ahead of peak Borg?

dominatinMC

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.

WickIow Brave

Chivito550 wrote: »

He didn’t routinely keep winning slams. He struggled past Roddick 16-14 in the fifth, a guy he usually beat easily, and he lost to Delpo. Nothing routine about it.

He won USO 2008, made AO 2009 final, won FO and Wimbledon 2009, lost to a phenomenonal del Potro in USO 2009, won AO 2010. Consistently made GS finals. Very routine.

His losses to lower ranked players? Ever hear of something called variance?

The Golden Miller

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.

TBH, I didn't think that excuse was even a thing. This thread is the first time I've come across it and it's hilarious. Smaller racquet! FFS

My bewilderment comes from the fact that these growing militant GOAT arguments have to be a thing at all. You see them everywhere now, the top guy in every sport today is seemingly the best ever. Would Federer have really done anything in Borg's pre-McEnroe era that would have cemented further dominance, or vice-versa in Federer's pre-Nadal years? Although with new racquets they are a different sport really. What I find most staggering from Federer fans is this constant militant insecure need to lord this GOAT title over every past player and down every casual observers throat repeatedly. The obsession borders disturbing. Ye mention and discuss it from time to time, but it's constant these days. You can't even discuss a good player from the past on their own merits anymore, without a 'but not as good as Federer' remark from a fanatic shoehorning it in. I'm sure Nadal has his fair share of fanboys, as did Sampras and Borg before him, but this Federer fanaticism is different level stuff altogether

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

His 2008 loss of form was caused by two factors imo, Glandular fever and also the fact he turned 27 that year. By 26 tennis players are usually on a downward slope.

Yes, and his losses to Nadal had little to do with with Nadal being that fraction stronger?

Turning 27 has nothing to do with anything.

RFs SW19 finals display was exceptional. As good and strong as any year at SW19. But, the fact that he lost to Nadal sees some want to try explain away the loss....

I would have no issue backing 2008 SW19 Nadal against any Federer at SW19....

Anyway, even in 2004-2007 Nadal was getting the better of RF. So, no matter what spin is put on it he loses out to Nadal...Oh, but that, of course is explained away due to the fact that they played a fair bit of tennis on this strange orange colored surface called clay. That can't be allowed.....

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

Yes, and his losses to Nadal had little to do with with Nadal being that fraction stronger?

Turning 27 has nothing to do with anything.

RFs SW19 finals display was exceptional. As good and strong as any year at SW19. But, the fact that he lost to Nadal sees some want to try explain away the loss....

I would have no issue backing 2008 SW19 Nadal against any Federer at SW19....

Anyway, even in 2004-2007 Nadal was getting the better of RF. So, no matter what spin is put on it he loses out to Nadal...Oh, but that, of course is explained away due to the fact that they played a fair bit of tennis on this strange orange colored surface called clay. That can't be allowed.....

True, another pill Federer fans can't swallow. A teenage Nadal regularly outplayed and beat 'peak' Federer on his favourite surface

WickIow Brave

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Ever hear of opening your eyes and watching him in 2005/06 versus 2008. 95% down to 81% isn't variance. He lost his explosiveness and ferocity in 2008, the stamina was badly affected also, which in turn affected his precusion. Actually sit down and watch his matches in 2005/06 and then watch his matches in 2008.

His 2008 loss of form was caused by two factors imo, Glandular fever and also the fact he turned 27 that year. By 26 tennis players are usually on a downward slope.

Nadal beat Federer on hard courts in 2004 and 2006.

The Golden Miller

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

It's hard to take you seriously if you can't acknowledge Federer's level dropped significantly in 2008, it's as close to fact as you can get about such things.

Nadal did very well against Federer because his relative strength (topsin lefty forehand with high bounce) was pitted against Federer's relative weakness (The backhand). Styles make matches in Tennis just like styles make fights in boxing. The best metric of quality is against the field.

Style's make fights but if your style is continually losing, the sign of greatness is being able to adapt and still overcome your opponent. Since we're talking about boxing, look no further than how Ali adapted to Foreman. Nadal did it for Djokovic post 2011. Federer was continually unable to do this and continually came up short. So these question marks will always hang over his legacy.

And I've yet to be answered, how can Federers 'peak' years be GOAT material if, as Chivito puts it, he only faced journeymen? His greatness over this period was never tested by someone on his level, so I dont see how these years can be a measurement of greatness. Federer fans are the first to cast doubt on Borgs GOAT credentials pre-McEnroe because of easy competition. These questions are rarely answered by Federer fans who usually deflect the debate back to slam count or whatever

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

And? He wasn't invincible in 2004-2007.

Ok, so you concede that during his "peak" years he was not up to the task vs. Nadal, who was still probably not at his own peak?

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

It's hard to take you seriously if you can't acknowledge Federer's level dropped significantly in 2008, it's as close to fact as you can get about such things.

.

His level of play or his level of success? I watched plenty of RF in 2008 and his play was still right up there.

It is convenient to claim that his level of play dropped "significantly" to explain his losses, when really, the most losses were to a stronger player.

Federer played some brilliant tennis in 2008. Of his 16 losses 4 were to Nadal and two to Murray and one to Nole. Sure, he had some losses to lesser players. But that doesn't mean that he was not playing at or close to peak. It's a whole year, not just a match here and there. He had a few blips and a few losses to less than great players. So what. He still had many exceptional displays.

He still won one slam and was beaten in two slam finals....

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

He also beat Nadal during this period, including on clay.

He did, but overall he was beaten, 8-6....that was meant to be my point...

This during Fed's so called peak years, and Nadal's almost peak years.

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

It wasn't blips, his form dipped hugely.

Maybe his form dipped in 2004 - 2007 as well then...it would explain the losses to Nadal...

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Open your eyes and watch his matches.

I have watched. Watching him against lesser players where he looks unstoppable is what is tricking you. In 2004/2005 and 2006 he had yet to really face greats. Nadal, of course, was there, but we didn't know how great he was to become.

Federer did not have a peak. Even now you could argue he is as brilliant as ever. It's why he is GOAT.

But whenever the whole Nadal v Fed v Nole comes up (on a whjo beats who on their best days) suddenly Fed has this peak and anything outside it is dismissed as him being past it, all done to try and explain why he lost to Nadal and Nole more than he beat them.

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

He had a winning head to head against Djokovic until only recently. It's 23:22 to Djokovic, hardly domination.

Look at him versus Roddick in 2005 and conpare against Roddick in 2008.

I never claimed Djokovic dominated him. But he does have a clearer lead in slam matches which should get weighted more.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

I have watched. Watching him against lesser players where he looks unstoppable is what is tricking you. In 2004/2005 and 2006 he had yet to really face greats. Nadal, of course, was there, but we didn't know how great he was to become.

Federer did not have a peak. Even now you could argue he is as brilliant as ever. It's why he is GOAT.

But whenever the whole Nadal v Fed v Nole comes up (on a whjo beats who on their best days) suddenly Fed has this peak and anything outside it is dismissed as him being past it, all done to try and explain why he lost to Nadal and Nole more than he beat them.

To even compare Federer with two much younger players shows the delusion under which Nadal fans operate. No one would compare Mac/Connors directly because of the age gap, and yet somehow this should be ignored in the Fed/Nadal debate. But no one with any genuine knowledge of tennis is fooled by their waffling so that's fine.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

To even compare Federer with two much younger players shows the delusion under which Nadal fans operate. No one would compare Mac/Connors directly because of the age gap, and yet somehow this should be ignored in the Fed/Nadal debate. But no one with any genuine knowledge of tennis is fooled by their waffling so that's fine.

I am not with you?

Why can we not compare Fed to Nole and Nadal?

Both Nole and Nadal beat Fed all through Fed's career, and he beat them all through his...

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

I am not with you?

Why can we not compare Fed to Nole and Nadal?

Both Nole and Nadal beat Fed all through Fed's career, and he beat them all through his...

As someone once said... you cannot be serious?? Do you have any idea how long 5 years is in a tennis lifetime?? Federer has 450 more matches in his legs than Djokovic and you believe the h2h is decisive? Crazy logic.

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

As someone once said... you cannot be serious?? Do you have any idea how long 5 years is in a tennis lifetime?? Federer has 450 more matches in his legs than Djokovic and you believe the h2h is decisive? Crazy logic.

Oh, so more goalposts moving. Fed too old to compare. Too much miles on the clock.....despite him playing a far more graceful and stylish and less frenetic and grinding game...

2004 - 2007....what happened here with Nadal? Was RF too old, too many miles on the clock?

The excuses for Fed losing to Nadal are pathetic.

Nole beating Fed in 2007/2008 and so on....that explained away by too many miles on RFs clock?

with the different timelines could end up arguing all day.

One point is that Fed definitely benefited from an extremely weak competitive situation from 03 to 07, where he was also at his peak years where he won 12 slams.

Djokovic was too young/ hadn't fully applied himself yet, Hewitt was gone already, Roddick too limited, Safin was too lazy most of the time. Nadal was young and only dominant on clay.

but numbers of slams and longevity is what the history books will say so it won't matter.

mickmackey1

walshb wrote: »

Oh, so more goalposts moving. Fed too old to compare. Too much miles on the clock.....despite him playing a far more graceful and stylish and less frenetic and grinding game...

2004 - 2007....what happened here with Nadal? Was RF too old, too many miles on the clock?

The excuses for Fed losing to Nadal are pathetic.

Nole beating Fed in 2007/2008 and so on....that explained away by too many miles on RFs clock?

I never used Fed's victories over Nadal in 04-07 as proof he was better, Nadal was too young. By the same token Fed was declining from '08. We never saw them play each other at their peak. Sad but true.