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

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

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.

Sorry, 2004 - 20007 and Nadal had a lead in H2H, so no need for you to explain why Fed was better. He was not, as highlighted by the fact that he was clearly behind in the years 2004 - 2007. By the completion of 2007 Nadal led the H2H 8-6...

walshb

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Tell me who finished the year number one by wide margins in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007? Who picked up 11 slams in those years? Who was that?

In case you missed it I think we all agree who was the career GOAT!

The Golden Miller

Buffalo Horn wrote: »

Tell me who finished the year number one by wide margins in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007? Who picked up 11 slams in those years? Who was that?

Everytime there are questions Fed fans can't answer, they deflect to discussing how many slams he won. So Fed dominated an era against journeyman where we've nothing to measure his greatness against, and thereafter was simply not the best player... agreed?

The Golden Miller

walshb wrote: »

In case you missed it I think we all agree who was the career GOAT!

Its a circular argument with Federer fans. Keep repeating the same points that keep being refuted when scrutinised, and when unable to credibly argue these points revert to talking about career honors

Chivito550

walshb wrote: »

Sorry, 2004 - 20007 and Nadal had a lead in H2H, so no need for you to explain why Fed was better. He was not, as highlighted by the fact that he was clearly behind in the years 2004 - 2007. By the completion of 2007 Nadal led the H2H 8-6...

Away from clay it was 5-2 Federer in the years you mention.

I think it’s fairly known fact that Nadal was always far better than Federer on clay and he was nearer his peak (if not at his peak) during those years on that surface. 6-1 Nadal lead on clay in those years.

mickmackey1

Let's be honest. Nadal would give away the H2H in a heartbeat, if only he could lead the Slams count.

walshb

Chivito550 wrote: »

Away from clay it was 5-2 Federer in the years you mention.

I think it’s fairly known fact that Nadal was always far better than Federer on clay and he was nearer his peak (if not at his peak) during those years on that surface. 6-1 Nadal lead on clay in those years.

Clay is a surface. It is a tennis match. More excuses....sorry, the same excuse! I could argue that two of those wins were on Fed's surface, grass. But why, it's lame. The surface is the same for both men. Rules same for both men...Fed beat him in 2006 and 2007 at SW19 on grass, a surface "better" suited to Federer. Credit to RF.

During Fed's prime years, according to you and others, he was bested by a "clay court" specialist who was still maturing. It's 8-6. Just accept it. Both brilliant.

Adamocovic

I know in my family there is a divide between Federer and Nadal. My father is a big Nadal supporter while I would be on Federers side.

Think their rivalry in it's prime was something we were lucky enough to see. Both outstanding players. Obviously on clay Nadal was the master, and injuries didn't help his career.

They play with two very different styles. In terms of being an overall athlete Nadal would win that matchup. I know I'm biased but I always thought Federer was the more skilful of the two. Nadals work rate was sublime and ability to move around the court was a joy to watch, but think it took it's toll on his body. Federer on the other hand didn't rely as much on the physical aspect of the game, rather used his precision and skill to dictate it.

Now Nadal is incredibly skilful too and both are two of the best players to play the sport, but I'd rank Federer as the best of all time because of how skilful he is. There was/is something so elegant and precise about his play and I just think his style is what I picture when I think of perfect tennis. I think his rivalry with Nadal pushed him to that though as he continually had to raise his game.

I'm loving his revival of winning ways and at 36 it's made even more impressive. To go 4 years without winning I think we all thought he was fading into retirement, but now the 3 grand slams in the last 13 months is incredible. Even my Dad is enjoying it, something I didn't expect!

walshb

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Let's be honest. Nadal would give away the H2H in a heartbeat, if only he could lead the Slams count.

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?

Adamocovic

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 had a great year last year. Still was mad that Nadal and Federer dominated slams.

If he can continue where he left off he'll definitely add to them. Thing with Nadal is he has to adapt his game to not rely on his athleticism as much. He's still only 31 when you think about it so if he does so successful he could come very close to beating Federer.

Will depend on how Federer continues though and of course if any younger star makes the push and starts to dominate.

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