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

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.

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.

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 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 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.

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

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?

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.

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.

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

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!

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

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.