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

duffman13 wrote: »

And a peak Fed would have been too strong for a 2011 Nole. Pointless debate, best man won this years tournament albeit not a classic tournament by any stretch.

Peak Fed (whenever you think that was) may or may not have been to strong.....

2011 Nole and 2015 Nole would have been hell for any Federer.

Chivito550 wrote: »

2011 Federer (not the best version of Federer at all) beat 2011 Novak in the French Open, the same Novak who was beating Nadal at will on clay up to then. Federer is better now than in 2011.

Like I said, Nole would have been hell for him. 2015 and 2011. Picking a match here and there. No point in doing that. Look at the overall picture and you can see that Nole would have been hell.

Look at their head to heads in big matches, plural.......Nole usually bested him. It's all about styles. Similar to boxers. Nole's style matches up very well against Federer.

A lot is made of peak this and that.

For me peak Nole was 2011 and 2015. Peak Roger is very difficult to say. Success wise it was 2006/2007, but that doesn't always tell the picture, as Nole wasn't near the force back then compared to later..

Looking through the years I think 2009 was a huge year for Roger. He was playing brilliant tennis, and may well have been a better overall player than his 2006 and 2007 self. Also, last year he was playing off the charts...

It would be almost a split between his best day and Nole's best day......they are that close...

Exactly my point. Very hard to find Fed's peak, or absolute peak. He has been that brilliant for so long.

I still believe that over ten matches across all surfaces best vs best it would be razor close. I would have to put my money on Nole. I think he was just a little stronger.

Overall tennis greatness as regards career, longevity, style of play, achievements I believe Roger to stand alone!

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Federer fans like to talk about his form dipping here and there to explain why he was roundly beaten be Nadal and Novak again and again. The reality is he was consistently near his best for years, and the minute he got some real competition he stopped winning so many slams, and started winning again when either Nadal was injured, or all the top players as is currently the case. He's a brilliantly fluid and technically complete player, as much as you can be, but that doesnt always mean you're the best.

No one hit for the lines with the force and aggression that Novak did in his pomp. He was generally unplayable. Has anyone ever seen Nadal put on the ropes and get pounded like that again and again? Novak and a young McEnroe at their peak were the two most aggressive and dominant players I've ever seen. Had you on the back foot from the off. A tour de force

So what you are saying is Federer wins slams depending on the strength of the opposition, but Rafa and Novak won slams because they were simply brilliant.

Federer’s form never dipped but that of Rafa and Djokovic did dip.

Convenient that.

The Golden Miller wrote: »

At what point could you say Federer was better than Novak or Nadal when they were both fully fit, particularly after Novak stepped up to the plate? But they were just periods that coralated with Federer declining before he peaked again when they were injured? Convienient that.

Federer’s peak did not overlap with Nadal’s peak or Djokovic’s peak.

Maybe Nadal’s and Djokovic’s peaks overlapped.

But Federer is 5 and 6 years older than the other two. He was operating at a high level but he was not at his absolute peak when Nadal and Djokovic were at their peak.

It’s funny how people like to disregard Federer’s early slams by saying Nadal was too young, but will never disregard Nadal and Djokovic’s slams by saying Federer was a bit old. Double standards.

Staying injury free is a part of the sport btw. I hate to burst your bubble on that one.

Chivito550 wrote: »

Federer’s peak did not overlap with Nadal’s peak or Djokovic’s peak.

Maybe Nadal’s and Djokovic’s peaks overlapped.

But Federer is 5 and 6 years older than the other two. He was operating at a high level but he was not at his absolute peak when Nadal and Djokovic were at their peak.

It’s funny how people like to disregard Federer’s early slams by saying Nadal was too young, but will never disregard Nadal and Djokovic’s slams by saying Federer was a bit old. Double standards.

Staying injury free is a part of the sport btw. I hate to burst your bubble on that one.

It's not a like for like analogy though. Nadal and Novak were only developing, just as Federer once did; well Nadal was morso adapting to other surfaces. Unless you're lleyton Hewitt, that's par for the course. Declining is alot more vague, and I see no indication that Federer declined to a lesser level. When Nadal was injured Federer carried on as before, winning slams in the same convincing fashion. Fluid natural players tend to stay at their peak, or to a level close to it for longer, just look at osullivan in the snooker, it takes less out of them. Saying Federer declined is just a convienient cop out for those fanboys unable to admit someone actually matched and bested their hero that they thought was untouchable.

walshb wrote: »

Nobody can really give Fed's absolute peak...

But, it is fact that during the years 2006 - 2015 Nole and Nadal bested him as much as he bested them.

The excuses made from both sides is ridiculous...

Hand on heart I would back Nole and Nadal over Fed when all at their finest.....I mean via razor close matches.....

I wonder how many Federer fans would stake their life savings on peak Federer beating peak Novak or Nadal. If they had to put their money where their mouth is, I think deep down they know they'd be on to a loser, while a Nadal or Novak fan would be quietly very confident. Maybe this is where the Federer fans insecurity comes from and the need to champion him as the 'GOAT' every time he takes a piss. Personally I've no horse in the race, I've just seen what I've seen, and that is Novak and Nadal roundly beat Federer. And to my mind, a peak Federer or a Federer very close to his peak. Apply sustained pressure and a surprising amount of unforced errors will come

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I would, 100%. The fact is, in 50 years, Federer will be the name by which this era is defined. Nadal and Djokovic will then be mentioned as his rivals. Sad but true for the haters.

Then you'd be a clown to do so......

You must have missed all their epic matches through the years to come up with that....

dominatinMC wrote: »

This debate again! :pac: Very hard to compare and conclude, but it's obvious (as in the facts and records show us) that Nadal and Djokovic had Federers number for a long time. His match-ups with Djokovic were more even, the h2h with Nadal tells its own story. Of course, every match, every year is different, with different factors and circumstances at play every time so it is hard to conclude who would beat who in a hypothetical scenario.

Nevertheless, the best indicator, and the one I often think of, is Wimbledon 08. Here we have Federer at age (26 - hardly "declining") and Nadal at 21/22. Fed's favourite surface too. And he was beaten, marginally. Again, it was only one match, but I would argue that it tells us a lot about this debate.

Federer was suffering from Glandular fever in 2008 though. Nadal made a dogs dinner of that match. He was 2 sets and a break up and nearly let it slip.

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I would, 100%. The fact is, in 50 years, Federer will be the name by which this era is defined. Nadal and Djokovic will then be mentioned as his rivals. Sad but true for the haters.

Of course Fed will define this era! He has the most GS, and until someone can overtake that record, he will be remembered as the dominant force in tennis, and of this era in particular. However, tennis fans will know how competitive and compelling this era was and that, on any given day, any of the Big3 could have beaten the other. The simple facts (h2h records being one) is that the probability of Nadal or Djokovic beating Federer during this era (which isn't over yet) is higher than the converse happening. There is no denying that, no matter what spin (no pun intended) you put on it

mickmackey1 wrote: »

They would have had more epic matches if Nadal had not kept losing to Darcis, Rosol and the great Dustin Brown... LOL

True...

But you still need to focus on the 40-45 matches that they all played against each other......then tell me that you'd 100 percent back Roger when all at "peak."

Chivito550 wrote: »

Are you seriously comparing snooker to tennis. Athletics would be a better comparison. Look at Bolt last year. 30 years old and past it. He was beaten into 3rd at the Worlds. He could have won. He was so close. His start cost him. If he continued for another few years he might win another title, win some big races, just as Federer has, but the frequency of such wins becomes less and less against the younger guys at their peak.

When Nadal was injured Federer beat Roddick 16-14 in the 5th. He should have been 2 sets down, and really was lucky to win. Hardly convincing. 2005 Roger smashed Roddick off the court. Face it, his best was 04-07.

Didn't he smash Roddick the next twice they played? I think most people would put that down to Roddick, a shadow of the player he once was, having an indian summer and getting on a roll. Again nitpicking as opposed to looking at the bigger picture. You'd swear no one else had run Federer close in an individual match before.

Again, any time Nadal or the top competition was injured, Federer continued winning slams the way he always done previously, just as he is doing now years later. So I see very little evidence, other than the say so of Federer fans, that he had declined by circa 2011/12/13

Chivito550 wrote: »

Nadal’s record is skewed by clay. He only has 4 slams on hard court to Federer’s 11. That’s not close at all. On grass he had 2 to Federer’s 8.

What I will say about Nadal is that his dominance on clay is the greatest dominance by a single player on a single court type we’ve ever seen, even eclipsing Sampras and Federer on grass.

But away from clay he has 6 slams. It’s not a massive number. On grass and hard court Federer is a couple of notches above in terms of consistency, dominance, longevity and achievements.

You still have not answered the question

Best of ten matches outdoor hard-court who wins between Nadal and RF and Nole and RF?

Is it clear to RF, or close to RF?

I personally cannot see it clear for RF or clear for Nadal and Nole.....

I would bet on Nole and Nadal, but just about.