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

Chivito550 · 17-07-2018 04:50PM

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 05:02PM

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 05:07PM

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 05:15PM

Federer has the best hair.

The Golden Miller · 17-07-2018 05:15PM

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 05:17PM

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 05:24PM

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 05:25PM

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 05:30PM

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 01:44PM

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.

mickmackey1 · 18-07-2018 04:23PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

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.

First of all, if Nadal was around in the 90s he would have 3/4 French Opens max.

Second, Federer couldn't meet Nadal at Slams because Nadal kept getting beaten by journeymen in the earlier rounds. Federer cosistently reached semis and finals but Nadal was back on his fishing boat in Mallorca by then.

Third, Nadal is very fortunate that Djokovic has spent a good portion of his career being a Djoker. They are the same age but Djokovic has proved his supremacy on grass and hard not to mention dishing out several beatings on clay.

Federer is No 1 all-time, Djokovic is in the top 5 and Nadal is one of many among the supporting cast.

Chivito550 · 18-07-2018 05:42PM

Hector Savage wrote: »

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.

Yes, he started to dominate him. 2 reasons:

1) Nadal improved
2) Federer’s level dropped (look at his win percentage in 2008 if you don’t believe me)

Most elite sportspeople peak in their early to mid 20s. Sonia O’Sullivan was nearly 31 when she was pipped by a peak Gabriela Szabo who was 24/25. Unfortunate timing. If the Olympics were 2 years earlier, 28 year old Sonia takes 22 year old Szabo most likely (as she did that year at the Euros). Such is life.

If Nadal was born 5-6 years earlier he’d have had to contend with tougher clay courters, faster Wimbledon and US Open courts in his earlier days, and he’d most likely be retired by now.

The Golden Miller · 18-07-2018 08:41PM

mickmackey1 wrote: »

First of all, if Nadal was around in the 90s he would have 3/4 French Opens max.

Say's who? If these one hit wonders were so good on clay, why did most of them never win the French or disappear the following year? Who's to say Nadal still isn't a level above the lot of them anyway. Nadal's clay slams wouldn't be "easy" if Federer was better.....

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Second, Federer couldn't meet Nadal at Slams because Nadal kept getting beaten by journeymen in the earlier rounds. Federer cosistently reached semis and finals but Nadal was back on his fishing boat in Mallorca by then.

We're talking about Fed's easy slams from circa 03-07. Why are you rambling on about Nadal getting knocked out early in subsequent slams years later? Oh right, you're just changing the argument as you go along, to Fed would beat Nadal more if the matches weren't on clay? Except back then, he lost more often than not to Nadal when they played on other surfaces

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Third, Nadal is very fortunate that Djokovic has spent a good portion of his career being a Djoker. They are the same age but Djokovic has proved his supremacy on grass and hard not to mention dishing out several beatings on clay.

Who is saying Nadal is better than Djokovic? Why are you trying to make up this rationale that there are "Nadal fanboys" here?

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Federer is No 1 all-time, Djokovic is in the top 5 and Nadal is one of many among the supporting cast.

Except he kept losing more often than not to his two closest peers....

Ben Koller · 19-07-2018 08:02AM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Say's who? If these one hit wonders were so good on clay, why did most of them never win the French or disappear the following year? Who's to say Nadal still isn't a level above the lot of them anyway. Nadal's clay slams wouldn't be "easy" if Federer was better.....

We're talking about Fed's easy slams from circa 03-07. Why are you rambling on about Nadal getting knocked out early in subsequent slams years later? Oh right, you're just changing the argument as you go along, to Fed would beat Nadal more if the matches weren't on clay? Except back then, he lost more often than not to Nadal when they played on other surfaces

Who is saying Nadal is better than Djokovic? Why are you trying to make up this rationale that there are "Nadal fanboys" here?

Except he kept losing more often than not to his two closest peers....

The current head to head with Djokovic is 23-22, that only recently switched to Djokovic's favour, for the majority of their rivalry Federer led the head to head.

Also if head to head is so important then we must conclude that Davydenko is a better Nadal.

I would say there are more journey men on today's circuit than there were in 2005. Mario Ancic of 2005 would probably win wimbledon or be in with a good shout of winning it in today's field. Gonzalez of 2006/7, who had one of the greatest forehand's of all time would be in with a shout of winning slams today.

dominatinMC · 19-07-2018 10:12AM

Ben Koller wrote: »

The current head to head with Djokovic is 23-22, that only recently switched to Djokovic's favour, for the majority of their rivalry Federer led the head to head.

Also if head to head is so important then we must conclude that Davydenko is a better Nadal.

Exactly, and what is wrong with saying that. Fed fans need to relax and just admit that some things are irrefutable, that's life. Davydenko is statistically a better player against Nadal and, if you are to extrapolate, has a higher probability of winning whenever he played against him. That obviously doesn't make him the GOAT, but it's just a fact that he beat Nadal more than Nadal beat him. Just like Djokovic and Nadal (to a much larger extent) are superior players than Federer in their matchups. Very simply put, when Djokovic or Nadal play Federer, they more often than not beat him. History has showed us that. You can include all the caveats you like to construct an argument to counteract that statistic, but the record books will not allude to racquet head size, mono (:rolleyes::D), court speed, etc. and will simply record that Djokovic and Nadal beat Federer more often than he beat them.

dominatinMC · 19-07-2018 10:28AM

mickmackey1 wrote: »

First of all, if Nadal was around in the 90s he would have 3/4 French Opens max.

Second, Federer couldn't meet Nadal at Slams because Nadal kept getting beaten by journeymen in the earlier rounds. Federer cosistently reached semis and finals but Nadal was back on his fishing boat in Mallorca by then.

Third, Nadal is very fortunate that Djokovic has spent a good portion of his career being a Djoker. They are the same age but Djokovic has proved his supremacy on grass and hard not to mention dishing out several beatings on clay.

Federer is No 1 all-time, Djokovic is in the top 5 and Nadal is one of many among the supporting cast.

:D:D You've come out with some beauties, but I think this tops them all. Congrats, because it is hard to top some of the ****e you've previously posted. At least the other Fed fans on here are able to offer some balance in their arguments, and debate with some rationale and logic. But that statement above undermines any shred of credibility you had. If there was one fact that I thought most could agree on is that Nadal is one of, if not the, greatest clay court player ever, surely worthy of his 11 FO titles. But, no, you want to discredit that by indulging in some hypothetical fantasy. They say love is blind, but your obvious love for Fed must have distorted another organ of yours (i.e. your brain) based on that statement.

dominatinMC · 19-07-2018 12:56PM

Bulldog Briscoe wrote: »

So you start off your post by saying what is wrong with saying Davydenko is better than Nadal. Well maybe the fact that he clearly isn't anywhere near as good a player as Nadal. You've just undermined any argument you've been trying to make with the nonsense at the start of your response.

Head to head is an overrated as it evaluates only one persons record against one other player not their overall record against the sport and all the competition.

Where exactly did I say that? I said that "Davydenko is statistically a better player against Nadal and, if you are to extrapolate, has a higher probability of winning whenever he played against him." That does not mean that Davydenko is a better player overall because, in absolute terms, he did not have as much success as Nadal across the entire playing field. Nevertheless, he was the better, more successful player in their match-up. Now, similarly, Fed has a rightly claim to GOAT due to his overall success in tennis, across the playing field, but he has been the inferior player when playing Djokovic (and to a much larger extent) Nadal. That does not make them better players, overall, than Federer, it just means that they are better players against Federer. The numbers are there, some Fed fans just have difficulty accepting them.

mickmackey1 · 19-07-2018 01:02PM

dominatinMC wrote: »

:D:D You've come out with some beauties, but I think this tops them all. Congrats, because it is hard to top some of the ****e you've previously posted. At least the other Fed fans on here are able to offer some balance in their arguments, and debate with some rationale and logic. But that statement above undermines any shred of credibility you had. If there was one fact that I thought most could agree on is that Nadal is one of, if not the, greatest clay court player ever, surely worthy of his 11 FO titles. But, no, you want to discredit that by indulging in some hypothetical fantasy. They say love is blind, but your obvious love for Fed must have distorted another organ of yours (i.e. your brain) based on that statement.

So you can argue that Fed would hypothetically not have won his 03-07 Slams with stronger opposition, but when someone makes the same point about Nadal's clay Slams you don't like it? Typical one-eyed hogwash. Do you really think anyone with one brain cell cannot see through your trolling? It's clear that you and your mate Goldie are OCD-riddled just like your hero. And you probably like putting your fingers in your *** and smelling it also.

dominatinMC · 19-07-2018 01:12PM

Bulldog Briscoe wrote: »

Fair enough , but they are fairly irrelevant to the overall argument because head to head is just one person versus another and yet it is being brought up constantly in this debate as being very very meaningful when it really isn't considering how little there is between the 3 in head to head and the fact that Federer is 5 and 6 years older then Nadal and Djokovic.

I agree with this. Some put too much emphasis on the H2H, and others are too dismissive of it. I just like numbers :pac:
FWIW, in terms of overall achievements in the game, I do think Fed is the forerunner at the moment for GOAT.

dominatinMC · 19-07-2018 01:14PM

mickmackey1 wrote: »

So you can argue that Fed would hypothetically not have won his 03-07 Slams with stronger opposition, but when someone makes the same point about Nadal's clay Slams you don't like it? Typical one-eyed hogwash.

Never made that argument, if you are going to attempt an debate, get your facts right please.

mickmackey1 wrote: »

Do you really think anyone with one brain cell cannot see through your trolling? It's clear that you and your mate Goldie are OCD-riddled just like your hero. And you probably like putting your fingers in your *** and smelling it also.

:D:D:D:D Obviously touched a nerve

The Golden Miller · 19-07-2018 04:36PM

Ben Koller wrote: »

The current head to head with Djokovic is 23-22, that only recently switched to Djokovic's favour, for the majority of their rivalry Federer led the head to head.

Also if head to head is so important then we must conclude that Davydenko is a better Nadal.

I would say there are more journey men on today's circuit than there were in 2005. Mario Ancic of 2005 would probably win wimbledon or be in with a good shout of winning it in today's field. Gonzalez of 2006/7, who had one of the greatest forehand's of all time would be in with a shout of winning slams today.

Since Djokovic rose to prominence as a top player circa 2011, he has repeatedly beat Federer again and again. Unless Federer takes pride in beating teenagers effectively

Hth isn't the be all and end all, but you can't dismiss it either. Davydenko beat Nadal sometimes because he was the better player, and on 3 or 4 occasions Nadal was just returning from injury. Infact, it was one of those injuries that allowed Federer to win the French. Bringing up Davydenko is just pedantry for those who can't accept Nadal had Fed's number. The sample size against Davydenko is far too small, nor did they meet in any slams. In much the same way, I wouldn't use Canas against Federer who leads their hardcourt hth. Too small a sample size, nor would I expect Canas to even come close to Fed in a slam where it really mattered. Do you want to have an actual discussion or be pedantic? The hth does matter to a certain degree, as you are playing the man, particularity in grand slams. The best v the best where it really matters. And Nadal beat Federer more often than not

Whether the field is marginally stronger or not, doesn't really make a difference as you're splitting hairs and it's subjective. The top guys will beat them regardless, or should do at least. You could also argue the field back then didn't contain a chasing pack with guys like Wawrinka and Del Potro

ballyargus · 19-07-2018 05:13PM

Djokovic emerged as a top player in 2007. Losing the us open in straight (albeit) close sets. He then win his first slam the very next year. He was a top player then, better than most could ever hope for. He peaked in 2011 but it's ridiculous to call him anything other than a top player prior to that

The Golden Miller · 19-07-2018 05:50PM

ballyargus wrote: »

Djokovic emerged as a top player in 2007. Losing the us open in straight (albeit) close sets. He then win his first slam the very next year. He was a top player then, better than most could ever hope for. He peaked in 2011 but it's ridiculous to call him anything other than a top player prior to that

Well no, he went up another level in 2011. Always the underdog against the big two before that, more often than not losing, then he found a way to improve his game. Since then the has repeatedly beat Federer, and Nadal for that matter. Unless Federer after 2003 was the same player he was in 2001? Why can't people just accept Nadal usurped Federer, just like Djokovic trumped both when he became the finished article? That's what happened, and all the mental gymnastics and spin won't change that.

The Golden Miller · 19-07-2018 05:51PM

Bulldog Briscoe wrote: »

Exactly , but that doesn't suit some peoples narratives.

If you are allowed to dismiss Federer's dominance of Djokovic in the earlier years of his career and you must be allowed to dismiss Djokovic's dominance of Federer in more recent years due to Federer's advancing age.

People are comparing them after their game became complete

Chivito550 · 19-07-2018 08:07PM

The Golden Miller wrote: »

Since Djokovic rose to prominence as a top player circa 2011, he has repeatedly beat Federer again and again. Unless Federer takes pride in beating teenagers effectively

Hth isn't the be all and end all, but you can't dismiss it either. Davydenko beat Nadal sometimes because he was the better player, and on 3 or 4 occasions Nadal was just returning from injury. Infact, it was one of those injuries that allowed Federer to win the French. Bringing up Davydenko is just pedantry for those who can't accept Nadal had Fed's number. The sample size against Davydenko is far too small, nor did they meet in any slams. In much the same way, I wouldn't use Canas against Federer who leads their hardcourt hth. Too small a sample size, nor would I expect Canas to even come close to Fed in a slam where it really mattered. Do you want to have an actual discussion or be pedantic? The hth does matter to a certain degree, as you are playing the man, particularity in grand slams. The best v the best where it really matters. And Nadal beat Federer more often than not

Whether the field is marginally stronger or not, doesn't really make a difference as you're splitting hairs and it's subjective. The top guys will beat them regardless, or should do at least. You could also argue the field back then didn't contain a chasing pack with guys like Wawrinka and Del Potro

To be fair, Federer was past his prime in 2011, so if you want to disregard Federer’s wins against Djokovic pre 2011, then you have to disregard Djokovic’s wins from 2011 onwards. Can’t have it both ways.

Unfortunately we’ll never know what 2011 Djokovic would have managed against 2005 Federer.

Hector Savage · 27-01-2019 04:04PM

Federer 20
Nadal 17
Djokovic 15
.
.
.
.
.
.
Let's talk in May ...

castletownman · 27-01-2019 06:08PM

A lurker here, but my argument when I have this debate with friends is thus:

If you were to take away Nadal's eleven French Opens, he would "only" have 6 grand slam titles, the same as Becker and Edberg won in total.

Djokovic minus his Australian Opens, would still have two more Grand Slam titles as Nadal, and the same as Agassi, Connors and Lendl.

But, Federer minus his 8 Wimbledon titles would still have him as a double-figure Grand Slam champion, with twelve. Only Sampras (14), Djokovic and Nadal would have won more if you were to use this metric (as tedious as it is).

Federer for me.

walshb · 27-01-2019 06:18PM

Chivito550 wrote: »

To be fair, Federer was past his prime in 2011, so if you want to disregard Federer’s wins against Djokovic pre 2011, then you have to disregard Djokovic’s wins from 2011 onwards. Can’t have it both ways.

Unfortunately we’ll never know what 2011 Djokovic would have managed against 2005 Federer.

I’ll take the 2011 FO Fed to beat and FO version of himself pre 2011...

That semi win in 2011 at RG over a brilliant Nole was as brilliant a Fed as any Fed..

He was not past his best that day. Close to his prime, for that match anyway.

SophieLockhart · 27-01-2019 06:31PM

walshb wrote: »

I’ll take the 2011 FO Fed to beat and FO version of himself pre 2011...

That semi win in 2011 at RG over a brilliant Nole was as brilliant a Fed as any Fed..

He was not past his best that day. Close to his prime, for that match anyway.

Federer is obviously more liable to produce a brilliant performance on a given day than anyone else. But in general, his overall performances had dropped considerably from his peak, and quite a few mediocre players were improving their results against him.

WicklowBrave · 27-01-2019 06:45PM

If you are forced to pick any player in history at their best to win a match but you don't know who their oppenent is or what surface they will play on and your life depends on it, you are picking Djokovic.

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

Comments