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

walshb · 02-02-2018 10:47pm

average_runner wrote: »

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

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three, I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

The Golden Miller · 02-02-2018 11:57pm

walshb wrote: »

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three. I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

Ye the courts aren't as drastically different, I think that tends to be an excuse pushed by Sampras fans originally. But I don't think the gap between Agassi, Sampras and the current 3 is all that huge either. The current 3 are better I would say, but Sampras and Agassi would get their fair share of wins.

Federer and Sampras met and it was a 5 setter. Sampras was probably not quite the player he once was, although closer to his peak than Federer and still slam winning material. But he was beginning to have alot of off days by this period. Federer would be better, but there would be alot of 5 set matches with Sampras winning some, particularly if his serve was on form and he was aggressive. As Roddick showed in the Wimbeldon final in 08, there's sometimes little you can do against a great serve. Same with Agassi, an ageing Agassi could take sets off a "peak" Federer. You'd have to assume a younger Agassi would be closer again, and take his fair share of wins.

I think the standout guys in most generations will always reach the top regardless of the generation. For example, Sampras' ground strokes could hold their own with the best when it was called for, although he preferred picking up quick cheap points. Serve and volley was the game at the time so he grew up perfecting that. If he grew up in today's baseline era, I don't see how his groundstrokes and conditioning wouldn't be alot better if that was the requirement for him to work at growing up. But this is the problem comparing era's.

average_runner · 03-02-2018 12:04am

walshb wrote: »

Let’s not pretend SW19 was drastically different back then. That has always been way exaggerated..

Sampras’ serve was exceptional, but not unbreakable. Nobody he faced was of the caliber of returner that Nole is or Nadal is or Federer is.

Plus, his ground strokes would not outmuscle and overpower any of the three. They are simply too strong.. Nadal and Nole would run Sampras ragged, and Fed has way too much skill, variety, precision and pace...

It’s clear to me from watching tennis for 35 years that the three today absolutely elevated the game to new heights. Unmatched.

I loved Sampras, but looking at him compared to the three. I think it’s no contest on any surface. They are too strong in key areas.

Wimbledon courts are now drier than ever. They are a slower surface. If you listen to Becker and McEnroe talk about it. It's no longer a serve and volley surface. Fed has said this himself.

I agree on the era's point. Sampras game was about quick and sharp.

Fed is probably the only player that has changed his game with the times and kept at the top. But would he be there now if we had a fully fit Nadal and Novak back to his mental best?

It's hard to know.

Tomero · 11-02-2018 7:24am

yerwanthere123 wrote: »

splinter65 wrote: »

Christ indeed! Where on earth do you find the time to forensically examine the political and ideological leanings of every single person you admire in the sports world or any other world?!? Even in your own world?
Because I assume you do in order to ensure that you can be seen to be condemning anyone who doesn’t tick all the boxes?
You must be exhausted?
Tell us, what does Roger Federer think about the situation in Myanmar?
How does Rafael Nadal feel about transgender rights, you must know, right?

What the hell are you even talking about? I assume most people are good people until I have reason to believe otherwise. Sandragen's distasteful tweets came to my attention as other retweeted/blogged about them. Very little time was needed to "forensically examine" this, given the rolling news feed nature of social media sites, stuff from years ago can literally be found in seconds. Are you aware of how the internet works?

Not exhausted either, on the contrary you're the one who seems to be getting a bit excited about it all. Have no idea what Federer thinks about the situation in Myanmar or how Nadal feels about transgender rights, nor do I understand it's relevance to this conversation, but I guess if you want to find out you could maybe Google it?

Christy42 wrote: »

It seems weird that of all the reasons why people take a dislike to different players that a player coming across as homophobic is seen as the worst reason.

I wouldn't say it's the worst, it's just that people on here were defending him and trying to explain it away when it was probably among the least defensible things he'd said.

Seomra50 wrote: »

There is nothing wrong with not liking gay clubs. Personally I find the sight of two men kissing disgusting, and there is nothing wrong with that. We are all allowed are personal tastes. What's ironic is that you condemn someone for feelings that they can't help, which is very similar to someone condemning someone for being attracted to the same sex, feelings they can't help. So I view your reasoning similar to those who are intolerant of gay people.

Not even gonna touch this, just gonna wait for you to be banned again :pac:

Translation: You are a hypocrite and you realise it is undeniable due to my superior reasoning so you try to side step the issue with no one noticing.

Condemning people for finding something disgusting is basically the same as condemning someone for being gay. In both instances the subject has no control over the feelings or sexual orientation. In another time you would be condemning gay people when it was fashionable to do so, because you are a lemming, group think runs your mind.

Back to the tennis, it seems it was a step too far for Edmund, hopeful he learns from this and comes back stronger.

mickmackey1 · 13-02-2018 5:06pm

The dangerous Khachanov beaten in Rotterdam so the stars appear to be aligning for Fed... just 3 more little wins and we can close this thread for good

Rikand · 17-02-2018 2:08pm

Fed #1 and goat

PlaneSpeeking · 15-06-2018 2:13pm

Rikand wrote: »

Fed #1 and goat

Never anything more accurately said! Best player ever.

The Golden Miller · 15-06-2018 2:26pm

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Never anything more accurately said! Best player ever.

What's your metric for GOAT?

PlaneSpeeking · 15-06-2018 2:27pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

What's your metric for GOAT?

I'm a tennis fan of 40 years, not a statistician.

The Golden Miller · 15-06-2018 2:31pm

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I'm a tennis fan of 40 years, not a statistician.

Then how are subjective opinions "accurate"? "Accuracy" is an extrapolation of some sort of tangible measurement

ballyargus · 15-06-2018 8:36pm

By Twitter followers. Nadal is almost 50% better than Federer.

Joe Dog · 15-06-2018 10:17pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Then how are subjective opinions "accurate"? "Accuracy" is an extrapolation of some sort of tangible measurement

Statistics can't prove everything.Sometime your eyes are the best guide when it comes to who the greatest is.

You constantly bang on on the soccer forum about statistics not really mattering when it comes to Ronaldo vs Messi debate but apparently now they matter in this debate.

You really need to show some consistency.

The Golden Miller · 15-06-2018 11:20pm

Joe Dog wrote: »

Statistics can't prove everything.Sometime your eyes are the best guide when it comes to who the greatest is.

You constantly bang on on the soccer forum about statistics not really mattering when it comes to Ronaldo vs Messi debate but apparently now they matter in this debate.

You really need to show some consistency.

I queried what his metric was, as any metric that "accurately" states Federer being the GOAT is simply a fallacy to begin with, so my line of thought is actually consistent. As an aside, I don't call Messi the GOAT, it's impossible to say as there are too many variables between the era's. Yet, all we hear on this thread is matter of fact opinions. Federer definitively better than Borg for example? Maybe, but not definitively, ergo maybe the GOAT, maybe not. Why are Federer fans so insecure that they need to repeatedly hail him as the GOAT?

Joe Dog · 15-06-2018 11:45pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I queried what his metric was, as any metric that "accurately" states Federer being the GOAT is simply a fallacy to begin with, so my line of thought is actually consistent. As an aside, I don't call Messi the GOAT, it's impossible to say as there are too many variables between the era's. Yet, all we hear on this thread is matter of fact opinions. Federer definitively better than Borg for example? Maybe, but not definitively, ergo maybe the GOAT, maybe not. Why are Federer fans so insecure that they need to repeatedly hail him as the GOAT?

He's won more grandslams than anyone else.

That's a pretty strong argument for him being the best of all time.

There is no possible way you can say one great player is definitively better than another great player.

The Golden Miller · 15-06-2018 11:51pm

Joe Dog wrote: »

He's won more grandslams than anyone else.

That's a pretty strong argument for him being the best of all time.

There is no possible way you can say one great player is definitively better than another great player.

My point exactly, so why do Federer fans have to constantly beat that drum? Slam counting is also a highly flawed metric for greatness, particularly since it only became a thing with Sampras in the 90's. Not to mention the first guy to come to prominence in an era, generally gets a headstart in racking them up, the guy coming next having to always compete against the former i.e fewer "easy" slams for the second guy. Roswell has more slams anyway

Joe Dog · 16-06-2018 12:11am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

My point exactly, so why do Federer fans have to constantly beat that drum? Slam counting is also a highly flawed metric for greatness, particularly since it only became a thing with Sampras in the 90's. Not to mention the first guy to come to prominence in an era, generally gets a headstart in racking them up, the guy coming next having to always compete against the former i.e fewer "easy" slams for the second guy. Roswell has more slams anyway

Because they think he's the best of all time, he's widely regarded as being the best of all time so it isn't just Federer fans who are saying it.

The Golden Miller · 16-06-2018 12:41am

Joe Dog wrote: »

Because they think he's the best of all time, he's widely regarded as being the best of all time so it isn't just Federer fans who are saying it.

And that needs to be mentioned every time Federer is mentioned? It is something unique about Federer fanbots that this "GOAT" stuff has to be shoved down everyone's throat at any given opportunity. It's almost as if they are trying to over-compensate to hide the fact he was routinely bested by Nadal on court, particularly between 08-14....huge insecurity in their minds as to whether he really is the "GOAT". Anyway, calling someone the "GOAT" is a definitive statement, as we've clarified, he isn't definitively better than the other greats, nevermind when we narrow things down to certain metrics like clay, faster courts, overall slam count, peak form etc

Joe Dog · 16-06-2018 8:03am

The Golden Miller wrote: »

And that needs to be mentioned every time Federer is mentioned? It is something unique about Federer fanbots that this "GOAT" stuff has to be shoved down everyone's throat at any given opportunity. It's almost as if they are trying to over-compensate to hide the fact he was routinely bested by Nadal on court, particularly between 08-14....huge insecurity in their minds as to whether he really is the "GOAT". Anyway, calling someone the "GOAT" is a definitive statement, as we've clarified, he isn't definitively better than the other greats, nevermind when we narrow things down to certain metrics like clay, faster courts, overall slam count, peak form etc

People refer to players being the GOAT in every single sport, it isn't just people who like Federer who do it.

You're simply making a nonsense argument.

mickmackey1 · 16-06-2018 5:51pm

Nadal fans weeping bitter tears yet again as Federer returns to No 1.

The Golden Miller · 16-06-2018 8:30pm

Joe Dog wrote: »

People refer to players being the GOAT in every single sport, it isn't just people who like Federer who do it.

You're simply making a nonsense argument.

People may talk about it in various sports when the topic arises, Federer fans do it anytime the lads name is mentioned, then often trying to qualify it as fact. I don't believe pointing out such pathetic fanboyism is a nonsense argument, their insecurity is worthy of a discussion in itself :pac:

Joe Dog · 16-06-2018 8:41pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

People may talk about it in various sports when the topic arises, Federer fans do it anytime the lads name is mentioned, then often trying to qualify it as fact. I don't believe pointing out such pathetic fanboyism is a nonsense argument, their insecurity is worthy of a discussion in itself :pac:

Well then we might as well close the thread.

If you argue in any topic that some one or some thing is the greatest of all time you are obviously going to make the case that it is a fact that what you are arguing is the best, to do less than that would be extremely poor arguing technique.

He has the record that tends to be used to assess who the greatest is in a sport and therefore you can say Federer is the greatest with more certainty than any other player, that why great of all time is more attributed to him by people than any other player.

The Golden Miller · 16-06-2018 9:20pm

Joe Dog wrote: »

Well then we might as well close the thread.

If you argue in any topic that some one or some thing is the greatest of all time you are obviously going to make the case that it is a fact that what you are arguing is the best, to do less than that would be extremely poor arguing technique.

He has the record that tends to be used to assess who the greatest is in a sport and therefore you can say Federer is the greatest with more certainty than any other player, that why great of all time is more attributed to him by people than any other player.

You're willfully missing the point. I'm not against GOAT arguments per say. It gets tedious when every tennis thread on every site becomes nothing more than a "Federer is the GOAT" thread. OK, even if he is, why is it shoved down everyone's throat on every tennis related topic every second post? Maybe you don't see it, if not fair enough, nothing left for us to discuss then

dominatinMC · 17-06-2018 3:39pm

mickmackey1 wrote:

Nadal fans weeping bitter tears yet again as Federer returns to No 1.

Good man. Good to see you and all your fellow Fed fans have come out of hibernation now that the clay season is over. Ye were certainly missed

walshb · 19-06-2018 1:03pm

Career titles, GS wins, GS finals' appearances, 1000 titles and overall consistent brilliant rankings for such a long period of time put Fed as GOAT for me...

Nobody has his overall statistics....

Hector Savage · 17-07-2018 11:27am

Has to be Nadal, he had the harder opponents and is close to winning all slams at least twice.

Federer will never win the FO again.

In Federers earlier years he breezed through slams while Nadal was still only a clay courter - no real rivals.

Djokovic didn't appear till 2008..

mickmackey1 · 17-07-2018 11:51am

Hector Savage wrote: »

Nadal was still only a clay courter - no real rivals.

Exactly. Nadal's clay court titles shouldn't be counted really.

dominatinMC · 17-07-2018 12:17pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Exactly. Nadal's clay court titles shouldn't be counted really.

Ya, you know what, I think you're right actually. We seem to forget that clay courts aren't really tennis courts at all. When played on clay, it is an entirely different sport afterall :rolleyes: Only the surfaces on which King Fed has had success should count as tennis courts...ya, that's it.

mickmackey1 · 17-07-2018 12:24pm

dominatinMC wrote: »

Ya, you know what, I think you're right actually. We seem to forget that clay courts aren't really tennis courts at all. When played on clay, it is an entirely different sport afterall :rolleyes: Only the surfaces on which King Fed has had success should count as tennis courts...ya, that's it.

I was pointing out that Nadal has no rivals on clay, which the previous poster used as justification for downplaying Federer's early titles. You conveniently ignored that however, as simple logic is beyond Nadal fanboys.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 2:24pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

I was pointing out that Nadal has no rivals on clay, which the previous poster used as justification for downplaying Federer's early titles. You conveniently ignored that however, as simple logic is beyond Nadal fanboys.

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

mickmackey1 · 17-07-2018 3:38pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

Seems like Nadal's latest failure has caused you to weep some salty tears

So when Federer was winning easy slams it's because the competition was poor, but when Nadal was doing the same it's because he's 'a level above'... that's exactly the kind of illogical tripe which makes Nadal fanboys a laughing stock. Nadal is extremely lucky to have even one Slam on a surface which is limited to one corner of Europe, whereas Federer's slams are mostly on a surface which 90% of players are more familiar with, and therefore infinitely harder to win.

But keep trying to argue that black is white and 2 plus 2 equals 5, it's giving me a great laugh.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 4:16pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Seems like Nadal's latest failure has caused you to weep some salty tears

So when Federer was winning easy slams it's because the competition was poor, but when Nadal was doing the same it's because he's 'a level above'... that's exactly the kind of illogical tripe which makes Nadal fanboys a laughing stock. Nadal is extremely lucky to have even one Slam on a surface which is limited to one corner of Europe, whereas Federer's slams are mostly on a surface which 90% of players are more familiar with, and therefore infinitely harder to win.

But keep trying to argue that black is white and 2 plus 2 equals 5, it's giving me a great laugh.

Salty tears? I couldn't care less that Nadal lost. I love how you try and call people "Nadal fanboys" so as to make it seem like me and others are the other side of the same coin as yourself. It's pathetic mate. Nadal, Murray, Djokovic wiped the floor of the guys Federer was beating in slams when they came onto the scene. Nadal roundly beat the rest of the "big 4" on clay. What is it you don't understand exactly? Nadal's clay slams wouldn't be easy if Federer and the others were better, just like Nadal got better on hardcourts and roundly beat Federer between 08-14. Also clay accounts for about 40% of the season, outdoor hardcourts marginally more, the rest other surfaces

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:00pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

That's not a like for like analogy though. Federer won easy slams because the competition was relatively poor, the same competition Nadal, Murray and Novak also beat on hardcourts when they came onto the scene. If Nadal is winning easy slams on clay, it's because he's a level above anyone else, even the rest of the "big 4".

This GOAT thing wouldn't even be up for debate if two of the slams were still on clay. Nadal would be dominating 2, while at least splitting the other two with Federer. No one here is a Nadal fanboy, most who you call "Nadal fanboys" say Novak is better on grass and hardcourts. Some "fanboys", eh? The only fanboy here is yourself, who cannot accept what happened when Nadal and Federer came in direct conflict, so have to explain it away on forums's as your hero couldn't do it on the tennis court

Jaysus. If you are going to say "what if" in relation to how many slams somebody would win if there were 2 clay slams, then you may as well say how many somebody would win if grass and hard courts played like proper grass and hard courts, and weren't glorified clay!

It's ok for you to come out with this rubbish, but when somebody else does likewise, it's "shifting the goalposts" or "Fed fanboyism".

Give me a break.

Homogeneous nature of tennis has benefited a player like Nadal. Fast courts aren't his specialty. There are NO fast courts in grand slams anymore.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Nadal wins no Wimbledon titles in the 90s. He likely doesn't even bother trying, like all the other great clay courters of that time. US Open was much faster back then too. No way is he winning 3 against the likes of Sampras' big serve and volley on those courts.

Would Federer win 8 Wimbledons. No? Would he win a good few? Yes. He's much more comfortable on faster courts, hence his dominant indoor record against Nadal for example.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 5:11pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Jaysus. If you are going to say "what if" in relation to how many slams somebody would win if there were 2 clay slams, then you may as well say how many somebody would win if grass and hard courts played like proper grass and hard courts, and weren't glorified clay!

It's ok for you to come out with this rubbish, but when somebody else does likewise, it's "shifting the goalposts" or "Fed fanboyism".

Give me a break.

Homogonous nature of tennis has benefited a player like Nadal. Fast courts aren't his specialty. There are NO fast courts in grand slams anymore.

Mickey is the one who keeps calling me a Nadal fanboy, I couldn't care less about the guy. I couldn't care less about any of them, in terms of who I would shout for.

I said 2 as there used to be two clay majors. He was the one working off hypotheticals, I just spun it another way. I go by what I see, that was Nadal usurping Federer, thereafter Djokovic usurped Nadal on all but clay. The rest is just excuses

ballyargus · 17-07-2018 5:14pm

There were also two grass slams once upon a time too.

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:18pm

Correct me if I am missing anyone here, but since Hard Court was introduced to Slams in 1978, before the turn of the century only 2 men won grand slams on all 3 surfaces:

Mats Willandar and Andre Agassi.

Willandar's has to have a bit of an astericks as his grass titles came in Kooyong before the Australian Open became a hard court slam, moved to Melbourne Park, and actually became important.

So essentially one guy.

Then since the turn of the century, not only have 3 guys done this, but they have all done it at the same time.

Now we could easily just write this off as them being the 3 greatest in history, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, that tennis has been destroyed, by the need to make rallies longer, to please sponsors and fair weather fans. This homogenous sport we have now benefits all 3 of the Big 3. But it benefits Nadal more than all. Federer is by far the most adaptable of the 3 and I am in no doubt he would have won many slams on lightning fast courts. I'm very unconvinced that Rafa would have been any sort of a factor at SW19.

The sport has become stale. Seeing the same contenders at all 4 slams, not just in terms of the winners, but even just those making quarter finals, is incredibly uninspiring.

Don't expect the courts to be reverted back to the way they used to be until all 3 have retired.

The era of the specialist is dead.

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:18pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Mickey is the one who keeps calling me a Nadal fanboy, I couldn't care less about the guy. I couldn't care less about any of them, in terms of who I would shout for.

I said 2 as there used to be two clay majors. He was the one working off hypotheticals, I just spun it another way. I go by what I see, that was Nadal usurping Federer, thereafter Djokovic usurped Nadal on all but clay. The rest is just excuses

When were 2 slams clay? It was 3 slams grass and just 1 clay.

ballyargus · 17-07-2018 5:25pm

I think the Australian Open rotated it's surface for a period of time (it was once purely grass) - that would have given rise to there being two clay slams in a given year.

Edit: US Open was clay for 3 years in late 70s

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 5:31pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Correct me if I am missing anyone here, but since Hard Court was introduced to Slams in 1978, before the turn of the century only 2 men won grand slams on all 3 surfaces:

Mats Willandar and Andre Agassi.

Willandar's has to have a bit of an astericks as his grass titles came in Kooyong before the Australian Open became a hard court slam, moved to Melbourne Park, and actually became important.

So essentially one guy.

Then since the turn of the century, not only have 3 guys done this, but they have all done it at the same time.

Now we could easily just write this off as them being the 3 greatest in history, or we can acknowledge the elephant in the room, that tennis has been destroyed, by the need to make rallies longer, to please sponsors and fair weather fans. This homogenous sport we have now benefits all 3 of the Big 3. But it benefits Nadal more than all. Federer is by far the most adaptable of the 3 and I am in no doubt he would have won many slams on lightning fast courts. I'm very unconvinced that Rafa would have been any sort of a factor at SW19.

The sport has become stale. Seeing the same contenders at all 4 slams, not just in terms of the winners, but even just those making quarter finals, is incredibly uninspiring.

Don't expect the courts to be reverted back to the way they used to be until all 3 have retired.

The era of the specialist is dead.

I agree that variation is better, but what should work in theory doesn't always play out that way. Guys will grow up adapting to the game of the day, we can't just pick the variables we want when crossing era's. Also, bassliners did just fine on quicker courts, it was give and take between those and serve and volleyers. So yes, you could argue the current courts only suit one type of game, whereas beforehand either could work. It all comes down to how good you are at executing what you do. Nadal would need a better serve though.

You could argue Federer would be more adaptable, and maybe he would be, but by the same token you could argue guys like Sampras would get further ahead the more you speed up the court. So if the court is too slow, Federer may not be the best, but if it's too quick he may not be either. A competitive adaptable jack of all trades, but master of none?

To me this argument is just pushed as another metric to say Federer is better than Nadal. We'll never know. We just have what we have at the end of the day. Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc....the best will always find a way to rise to the top of the game regardless

Chivito550 wrote: »

When were 2 slams clay? It was 3 slams grass and just 1 clay.

I could be wrong on that. Thought the US was on clay before, maybe it wasn't?

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:45pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

I agree that variation is better, but what should work in theory doesn't always play out that way. Guys will grow up adapting to the game of the day, we can't just pick the variables we want when crossing era's. Also, bassliners did just fine on quicker courts, it was give and take between those and serve and volleyers. So yes, you could argue the current courts only suit one type of game, whereas beforehand either could work. It all comes down to how good you are at executing what you do. Nadal would need a better serve though.

You could argue Federer would be more adaptable, and maybe he would be, but by the same token you could argue guys like Sampras would get further ahead the more you speed up the court. So if the court is too slow, Federer may not be the best, but if it's too quick he may not be either. A competitive adaptable jack of all trades, but master of none?

To me this argument is just pushed as another metric to say Federer is better than Nadal. We'll never know. We just have what we have at the end of the day. Borg, McEnroe, Lendl, Sampras, Agassi, Federer, Nadal, Djokovic etc....the best will always find a way to rise to the top of the game regardless

I could be wrong on that. Thought the US was on clay before, maybe it wasn't?

Be interesting to see the speed of Wimbledon courts in say 2001 and 2003 compared to 2007, 2008 and now.

Federer as a 19 year old beat Sampras who had not lost at Wimbledon for 5 years. That was the year Goran and Rafter played a very serve and volley final. The courts were definitely fast that year. 2003 I remember reading that the courts were still fast then, but I can’t remember where I read it so can’t go further with that.

Would definitely be interesting to see an analysis.

Would Federer have been better than Sampras on grass? Maybe, maybe not. I reckon it would be pretty close.

Sampras never could do it on clay. Federer has a fantastic clay court record. He’s way ahead of him on medium hard though.

Maybe Federer would be as you describe. Not the absolute best in any specific area, but the best overall. Agassi is certainly up there in that regard too.

The 4 slams should be fast grass, fast hard, medium hard, slow clay.

Right now the biggest difference in the slams is the country they play them in!!

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:47pm

Seems like US was on clay for a few years in 70s. It was grass the rest of the time until 1978. Australian was grass til late 80s.

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 5:50pm

I remember now. It was an analysis on the BBC around 2007 or 2008 or so that showed the difference in speed and bounce off Federer’s serve compared to 2003. Would be great to see that again. I’ll try find it on YouTube later but it’s probably a long shot.

dominatinMC · 17-07-2018 6:02pm

Why is this thread suddenly discussing hypothetical scenarios? It's pointless. The only rationale for an argument are the facts. Unless of course, these hypothetical scenarios present King Fed in a favorable light - oh yes, of course they do. If one has to descend into "what if" scenarios to justify an argument, you know they are desperate. What if Nadal hadn't gotten all those injuries, what if Djokovic hadn't gone into meltdown for the last 2 years, what if courts speeds were faster to "apparently" suit Federers game? Well, guess what, we don't know what would have happened. There is a high probability of a certain outcome, but at the end of the day, we can only rely on that which we have witnessed. And what I have witnessed is Djokovic and Nadal consistently outperform Federer, regardless of court surface, for the duration of their careers. That doesn't mean they are the GOATS (before the Fed fans **** themselves), that just means they are statistically better when playing against Federer.

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 6:07pm

dominatinMC wrote: »

Why is this thread suddenly discussing hypothetical scenarios? It's pointless. The only rationale for an argument are the facts. Unless of course, these hypothetical scenarios present King Fed in a favorable light - oh yes, of course they do. If one has to descend into "what if" scenarios to justify an argument, you know they are desperate. What if Nadal hadn't gotten all those injuries, what if Djokovic hadn't gone into meltdown for the last 2 years, what if courts speeds were faster to "apparently" suit Federers game? Well, guess what, we don't know what would have happened. There is a high probability of a certain outcome, but at the end of the day, we can only rely on that which we have witnessed. And what I have witnessed is Djokovic and Nadal consistently outperform Federer, regardless of court surface, for the duration of their careers. That doesn't mean they are the GOATS (before the Fed fans **** themselves), that just means they are statistically better when playing against Federer.

You might want to take note that it was a poster on your particular side of the argument who started coming up with hypothetical situations regarding clay grand slams.

It’s also funny anytime somebody says that Federer was not at his peak when Nadal/Djokovic were at theirs (which he wasn’t, he’s 5-6 years older) you laugh it off, but it’s convenient to say that Federer only beats them when they are “off form” or were “too young”.

The Federer v Djokovic H2H is pretty much level but let’s just write off the wins when Djokovic wasn’t at peak, but keep the ones where Federer is past absolute peak. Sure why not!

Royale with Cheese · 17-07-2018 6:15pm

Federer has the best hair.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 6:15pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Be interesting to see the speed of Wimbledon courts in say 2001 and 2003 compared to 2007, 2008 and now.

Federer as a 19 year old beat Sampras who had not lost at Wimbledon for 5 years. That was the year Goran and Rafter played a very serve and volley final. The courts were definitely fast that year. 2003 I remember reading that the courts were still fast then, but I can’t remember where I read it so can’t go further with that.

Would definitely be interesting to see an analysis.

Would Federer have been better than Sampras on grass? Maybe, maybe not. I reckon it would be pretty close.

Sampras never could do it on clay. Federer has a fantastic clay court record. He’s way ahead of him on medium hard though.

Maybe Federer would be as you describe. Not the absolute best in any specific area, but the best overall. Agassi is certainly up there in that regard too.

The 4 slams should be fast grass, fast hard, medium hard, slow clay.

Right now the biggest difference in the slams is the country they play them in!!

Ye people say the courts were quicker circa 2001, but quicker again in the mid 90's. Sampras was fairly patchy between 00-02, think that's why he decided to retire. Think Roddick was even favourite against him in the US Open in 02.

The thing with serve and volleyers is the consistency. A bassliner like Federer will always be pretty consistent, so would beat Sampras when his serve is having an off day. When it's on song, it's very 50/50 and I'd learn towards Sampras, particularly if the courts were as quick as we're led to believe. So at their peaks, you have to assume the Sampras serve will be firing. So it's a tough one to call. His serve was something else when you look back at old matches though, the motion in how he came down on the ball made it look like a rocket coming off the racket, yet he could still get such placement and variation. Extremely hard to break.

But we only have what we have. Whether Federer is the biggest loser compared to the other 2 because of that, it's hard to say. I think Nadal would be fine in the 90's personally, bassliners like Agassi, Borg and the rest were fine too

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 6:17pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

You might want to take note that it was a poster on your particular side of the argument who started coming up with hypothetical situations regarding clay grand slams.

It’s also funny anytime somebody says that Federer was not at his peak when Nadal/Djokovic were at theirs (which he wasn’t, he’s 5-6 years older) you laugh it off, but it’s convenient to say that Federer only beats them when they are “off form” or were “too young”.

The Federer v Djokovic H2H is pretty much level but let’s just write off the wins when Djokovic wasn’t at peak, but keep the ones where Federer is past absolute peak. Sure why not!

That was in reply to mickeymackey lessening the importance of clay, or making the hypotheticals to suit himself. I just countered using the same logic

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 6:24pm

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Ye people say the courts were quicker circa 2001, but quicker again in the mid 90's. Sampras was fairly patchy between 00-02, think that's why he decided to retire. Think Roddick was even favourite against him in the US Open in 02.

The thing with serve and volleyers is the consistency. A bassliner like Federer will always be pretty consistent, so would beat Sampras when his serve is having an off day. When it's on song, it's very 50/50 and I'd learn towards Sampras, particularly if the courts were as quick as we're led to believe. So at their peaks, you have to assume the Sampras serve will be firing. So it's a tough one to call. His serve was something else when you look back at old matches though, the motion in how he came down on the ball made it look like a rocket coming off the racket, yet he could still get such placement and variation. Extremely hard to break.

But we only have what we have. Whether Federer is the biggest loser compared to the other 2 because of that, it's hard to say. I think Nadal would be fine in the 90's personally, bassliners like Agassi, Borg and the rest were fine too

Agassi had fairly slim pickings at Wimbledon to be fair. Sampras had a monopoly on that tournament and it was Goran and Rafter who were the ones that pushed him closer there.

Agassi has a great record in Australia. Was the old Rebound Ace surface there slower than the US Open Decoturf? It’s quite interesting that it’s 5-2 Sampras at US, but 4-2 Agassi in Australia.

I’d be unconvinced about Rafa on the 90s grass. The top clay courters of that time (Kuerten, Bruguera, the type of guys that don’t seem to exist anymore sadly) were pretty awful on grass. Bruguerra didn’t even bother with Wimbledon from memory.

dominatinMC · 17-07-2018 6:25pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

It’s also funny anytime somebody says that Federer was not at his peak when Nadal/Djokovic were at theirs (which he wasn’t, he’s 5-6 years older) you laugh it off, but it’s convenient to say that Federer only beats them when they are “off form” or were “too young”.

We're never going to agree on "peaks" as it is subjective in determining the peaks. Unless there is some metric by which we can quantify a peak?

Chivito550 wrote: »

The Federer v Djokovic H2H is pretty much level but let’s just write off the wins when Djokovic wasn’t at peak, but keep the ones where Federer is past absolute peak. Sure why not!

Djokovic 23 - Federer 22 = Djokovic statistically being the better player against Federer. Why are we going over old ground here.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 6:30pm

Chivito550 wrote: »

Agassi had fairly slim pickings at Wimbledon to be fair. Sampras had a monopoly on that tournament and it was Goran and Rafter who were the ones that pushed him closer there.

Agassi has a great record in Australia. Was the old Rebound Ace surface there slower than the US Open Decoturf? It’s quite interesting that it’s 5-2 Sampras at US, but 4-2 Agassi in Australia.

I’d be unconvinced about Rafa on the 90s grass. The top clay courters of that time (Kuerten, Bruguera, the type of guys that don’t seem to exist anymore sadly) were pretty awful on grass. Bruguerra didn’t even bother with Wimbledon from memory.

Agassi had his problems and under-achieved in the game. Don't think it was his style that held him back for much of his career, or indeed Wimbledon.

Hector Savage · 18-07-2018 2:44pm

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Exactly. Nadal's clay court titles shouldn't be counted really.

You misunderstand, my point is NAdal at first (2005-2008) didn't threaten Federer on any GS surface except the FO.

After 2008 wimbledon , he started to dominate him on ALL surfaces.

Federer didn't beat Nadal again in a GS until 2017 AO.

From 2003-2007 Federer picked up a lot of slams beating easier guys.

if Nadal was born a few years before I'm sure Federer wouldn't have as many slams.

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

Comments